Strait of Hormuz crisis prompts Iraq and Jordan to revisit oil pipeline plan
Iraq and Jordan have reignited discussions about reviving a long-delayed oil pipeline connecting Basra to Jordan's Aqaba port, amid growing regional concerns over the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz. The proposal, first made in 2013, was initially intended to provide an alternative route for oil exports outside of the Strait of Hormuz, which has become increasingly volatile due to the ongoing conflict between Iran and the United States. Recent developments, including a drone attack on an oil tanker and heightened security threats, have added urgency to the project. The pipeline would consist of two sections, with a total capacity of 3.25 million barrels per day. The U.S., through Trump’s envoy Tom Barrack, has encouraged such initiatives to reduce global dependence on the strait. However, the project faces challenges, including past delays caused by the Islamic State occupation and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Iraq and Jordan have reignited discussions about an ambitious oil pipeline project connecting Basra to Aqaba, Jordan’s sole seaport, amid growing regional concerns over the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz. The initiative comes as the United States urges Middle Eastern nations to explore alternative routes for oil and trade to reduce dependence on the narrow waterway, which has become a flashpoint in the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict. The talks were held on Wednesday between Jordan’s foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, and Iraq’s prime minister, Ali Al Zaidi, with U.S. involvement represented by Tom Barrack, a close associate of former U.S. president Donald Trump and a special envoy to Iraq and Syria. The meeting included representatives from both governments and the U.S. embassy in Turkey. The proposed pipeline, known as the Basra-Aqaba project, was initially conceived in 2013 with an estimated cost of $18 billion. It was intended to pass through Jordan’s Zarqa refinery and transport approximately 3.25 million barrels of oil daily. However, the project faced multiple setbacks, including delays caused by the Islamic State group’s occupation of parts of western Iraq in 2014 and further postponements due to the global pandemic in 2020. Recent reports suggest that the renewed effort involves two segments: one spanning 700 kilometers from the Rumaila oilfield near Basra to the western city of Haditha, capable of carrying 2.25 million barrels per day, and another segment extending from Haditha to Aqaba, transporting 1 million barrels daily. The current push for the pipeline follows recent escalations in the region, particularly after a drone strike hit an oil tanker near Basra earlier this week. Despite the incident, officials confirmed that oil loading operations continued in the area. Additionally, Dana Gas, a Jordan-based energy firm, announced the shutdown of its production facilities at Iraq’s Khor Mor gas field due to heightened security concerns and rising tensions. These developments underscore the fragile security environment in the region, which has prompted calls for diversifying export routes away from the Strait of Hormuz. The geopolitical context surrounding the pipeline project is complex. The conflict between Iran and Israel has led to increased military activity in the region, prompting efforts to secure alternative transit corridors for oil and other goods. Several proposals have emerged, including rerouting shipments via land to ports in Syria, Turkey, and Iraq. This shift has gained urgency following Iran’s decision to restrict access to the strait during previous conflicts, as well as the recent unraveling of agreements aimed at reopening the channel. Brent crude prices have risen to around $84 per barrel, reflecting market anxieties over supply disruptions. Tom Barrack, who has long advocated for reducing global reliance on the Strait of Hormuz, has engaged in discussions with officials from Syria and Iraq, as well as with Chevron, regarding the potential restoration of a pipeline linking Iraq’s Kirkuk fields to Syria’s port of Baniyas. His involvement highlights the broader U.S. interest in securing alternative energy pathways in the region. Meanwhile, concerns persist over the Iraqi government’s ties with Iran, which has supported Shiite militia groups within Iraq. These militias are viewed as aligned with Iran’s clerical leadership, complicating Iraq’s relationships with neighboring Sunni Arab states. The renewed focus on the Basra-Aqaba pipeline aligns with previous diplomatic efforts to expand regional connectivity. In 2020, officials from Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq convened in Cairo to discuss extending the pipeline network to include all three countries. At the time, relations among these nations were improving under the leadership of former Iraqi prime minister Mustafa Al Kadhimi, who had initiated a rapprochement with Sunni Arab states. The current discussions reflect a continuation of these efforts, albeit against a backdrop of renewed regional instability and shifting alliances.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.
Iraq and Jordan have reignited discussions about reviving a long-delayed oil pipeline connecting Basra to Jordan's Aqaba port, amid growing regional concerns over the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz. The proposal, first made in 2013, was initially intended to provide an alternative route for oil exports outside of the Strait of Hormuz, which has become increasingly volatile due to the ongoing conflict between Iran and the United States. Recent developments, including a drone attack on an oil tanker and heightened security threats, have added urgency to the project. The pipeline would consist of two sections, with a total capacity of 3.25 million barrels per day. The U.S., through Trump’s envoy Tom Barrack, has encouraged such initiatives to reduce global dependence on the strait. However, the project faces challenges, including past delays caused by the Islamic State occupation and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the situation objectively, discussing both the geopolitical motivations behind the pipeline project and the logistical and historical challenges it has faced. There is no overtly biased language or selective emphasis on one side over another. The framing appears balanced, with a
Why factuality (85): The article reports on discussions between Iraq and Jordan regarding the revival of an oil pipeline project, citing Jordanian state television and mentioning US involvement. It provides historical context about the project's origins, delays, and current status. While no primary source is available,
Why objectivity (80): The article presents the information in a neutral tone, reporting on official statements and events without overt bias. However, it mentions the US encouraging alternative routes to the Strait of Hormuz, which may subtly imply a geopolitical angle. The focus on the pipeline as a response to regional
The NationalParty-alignedConservativeFactual 80Objective 602 days ago
Iran launched new attacks on Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan on Thursday, marking the sixth day of escalating tensions in the region. These attacks occurred despite Iran's previous calls for diplomacy following U.S. military strikes across the country. The Kuwaiti military reported defending against drone threats, while Bahrain confirmed intercepting Iranian missiles and drones, condemning civilian targeting. Meanwhile, the U.S. conducted a six-hour airstrike campaign targeting Iranian military infrastructure, including coastal defense sites on the UAE-controlled island of Greater Tunb. The strikes aimed to reduce Iran's capability to threaten maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. officials, including President Trump and Vice President Vance, expressed concerns over Iran's behavior and criticized Israeli government efforts to undermine U.S.-led peace talks.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the U.S. actions as justified responses to Iranian aggression and highlights U.S. leadership in addressing regional security threats. It emphasizes the potential for further military action by the U.S., particularly under President Trump, and criticizes Israeli officials for their
Why factuality (80): The article accurately describes recent escalations in hostilities between Iran and the US, including specific locations affected and military responses from Gulf countries. These details align with cross-source consensus about the timing and nature of the attacks. However, the article does not prov
Why objectivity (60): The article exhibits a somewhat biased tone by emphasizing the attacks on Gulf nations and suggesting the interim agreement between the US and Iran has 'all but voided.' It also quotes US Central Command directly, which may introduce a pro-US perspective. The language used, such as 'attacks on civil
Kuwait reported that Iran launched another attack on its power and water facilities, causing disruptions to energy production. This follows a series of retaliatory strikes by both the United States and Iran since the collapse of a recent ceasefire. The US has conducted seven consecutive nights of airstrikes targeting Iranian military infrastructure, while Iran has responded by attacking Gulf states and disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Both sides accuse each other of escalating tensions, with the US claiming to enforce a naval blockade and Iran accusing the US of interfering with regional trade. Iranian state media reported damage to US assets in southern Iran, but these claims were dismissed by the US military as false. The situation highlights ongoing hostilities between the two nations, with concerns growing over potential further conflict.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the mutual accusations and actions between the US and Iran, without overtly favoring either side. It reports on both sides' claims and provides official statements from both governments without clear ideological leaning. While the content is highly politic化
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
AE
