In the present era, energy has become one of the most important variables affecting relations between states and international actors. (Griffiths, 2019) The dependence of countries on energy resources has paved the way for the formation of a type of power relations between states that manifests itself in the form of cooperation, competition, crisis, and even conflict and war (Gökçe et al., 2021). While until recent decades, war and military intervention were considered one of the dominant tools for dominating energy resources, the end of the Iraq War can be considered the official end of this period of military competition over energy (San-Akca et al., 2020). With the transformation of the structure of the international system and the reduction of the economic cost of war to achieve strategic goals, the world has entered a new stage in which territorial and geographical borders have given way to complex and multilayered relations, so to speak, instead of a mosaic of countries, we are faced with a “networked world”; A world of actors that are interconnected in an interconnected way, in a framework of economic and security interdependencies (Rong, 2021). Factors such as increasing population growth, scarcity of natural resources, geographical poverty and growing human needs have led to relations between states being shaped more than ever by mutual considerations.
However, war remains an important component of the international order and many interdisciplinary studies have addressed the question of when and under what conditions states go to war. In this context, war occurs when one of the fundamental values ​​of a state is threatened and the opportunity to respond is limited (Bremer, 1992:320). This theoretical explanation provides a better understanding of the emergence of sudden and large-scale wars such as the Russo-Ukrainian war. The Russo-Ukrainian war, which erupted in response to Kiev’s growing rapprochement with the West and the general desire of the Ukrainian people to join NATO, is a manifestation of the geopolitical confrontation between land-based powers (such as Russia) and sea-based powers (such as the United States and its European allies). This conflict posed significant challenges to Europe’s energy security. Russia, which was Europe’s main energy supplier before the war, was forced to reduce its energy exports to Europe by about 70 percent after the conflict began. This fundamental change led Europe to search for new energy sources and alternative transit routes.
In such a context, the Caspian Sea and its peripheral countries, especially the three emerging republics of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan, have emerged as serious options for supplying part of Europe's energy needs. With significant oil and natural gas reserves, these countries can play an alternative role to Russia in the context of Europe's energy crisis. This shift in Europe's direction towards Caspian resources poses challenges beyond the energy sector and also affects the geopolitical and regional security arena. The proximity of the aforementioned countries to Europe in the context of energy cooperation has inevitably led to greater sensitivity and scrutiny in Europe regarding developments in the Caspian region, especially regarding the behavior and interactions of the Islamic Republic of Iran with these countries. In fact, Europe's increased dependence on the energy of Central Asia and the South Caucasus will lead to a kind of indirect monitoring of Iran's power relations and cooperation patterns, such as maritime diplomacy with its Caspian neighbors. Especially in a situation where Europe is seeking to establish safe and reliable energy transport routes, any change in Iran’s behavioral pattern with these countries could have regional and international consequences.
This article seeks to answer the question, using a qualitative approach and the theory of interdependence, of how the Caspian countries fit into the new European energy equation with the start of the Ukrainian war and the reduction of Russia’s share in supplying Europe with energy, and what impact these developments have on Iran’s maritime diplomacy in the Caspian region. Analyzing the consequences of the Russia-Ukraine war on Europe’s energy strategy in the Caspian region not only indicates extensive changes in the geopolitical and geoeconomic map of the region, but also has direct effects on the regional diplomacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran as one of the important players in the Caspian. In fact, in response to the research question of "How have the developments resulting from the Ukrainian war affected Europe's energy strategy in the Caspian region and what challenges does this pose for Iran's regional diplomacy?", it can be said that with the decline in Russia's role as Europe's main energy supplier, the Caspian littoral countries, especially Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan, have come into the spotlight, and this development has led to a rearrangement of regional relations. From the perspective of the theory of interdependence, what has occurred during this period is the strengthening of multilateral ties in the fields of energy, transportation, and trade between Europe and the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus. The Ukrainian war and the reduction in energy supplies from Russia forced the European Union to lean towards new sources and safer transit routes, including the Caspian Sea, in order to maintain energy security. In this regard, countries such as Azerbaijan by developing the Southern Gas Corridor, Turkmenistan by participating in transit projects such as the Trans-Caspian and Lapis Lazuli, and Kazakhstan by investing in strategic ports and infrastructure have succeeded in establishing their position in the European energy strategy. Meanwhile, Iran's role in the regional energy equation has weakened. Iran, which was previously known as a vital energy transit route between Central Asia and Europe, has been excluded from key regional projects such as the Trans-Caspian Corridor due to factors such as international sanctions, restrictions on foreign investment, and low technical competitiveness.