The Political Risks of Various Pipeline Routes in the Caspian Basin Hooshang Amirahmadi To assess the political risks associated with various pipeline routes from Central Asia and the Caucasus to markets in Europe, Asia and other world regions one must account for a multiple of often paradoxical factors at national, regional and global levels. Yet the current positions held by the major players involved often ignore this complexity in favor of narrowly defined strategic and economic interests largely informed by shortsighted political animosity, rivalry or alliances. To advocate for particular routes on the basis of a policy that excludes some players and includes others in the so-called great game that has ensued in the wake of the oil and gas rush in the Caspian basin is haphazard at best. The current approach is equally dangerous, for it remains oblivious to internal political and economic developments of the countries involved. In what follows, I shall first provide a description of various routes and their advocates and then give an outline of the major risk factors involved including the extent they are ignored or accounted for in the positions held by the regional players. I shall conclude by proposing that decisions concerning oil and gas pipelines should recognize the need for multiple routes as dictated by political, economic, technical and strategic realities, and that a grand cooperative and win-win strategy is preferred over the current alliance­making and win-lose games. Yet, the most important preconditions for a sustainable transport of Caspian energy are national political and economic developments. The proposed framework is based on the assumption that the long-term prospect for every player is much richer than what it can achieve by maximizing its short-term gains. I. Pipeline Routes and Their Advocates Currently, five pipeline routes are available, proposed or contemplated. They include northern routes, southern routes, western routes, eastern routes, and southeastern routes. As we shall shortly see, some are extensions of existing pipelines while others are altogether new and have to pass through untested and contested geographies. Rough terrain, ethnic violence, bureaucratic infighting and individual ambitions need to be accounted for along the way. They are also distinguished in terms of their strategic 36