EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Regional Powers in Central Asia Grapple With Expanding US Military Presence

EURASIA INSIGHT

REGIONAL POWERS IN CENTRAL ASIA GRAPPLE WITH EXPANDING US MILITARY PRESENCE
Ariel Cohen 2/06/02

The ongoing American military presence in Afghanistan underscores the evident US willingness to broaden the campaign against terrorism. Regional powers in Central Asia, especially Iran, have been disconcerted by US rhetoric. At the same time, regional rivals appear to have few means at their disposal to prevent the United State from implementing its anti-terrorism plans.

The United States is quickly building up its military capacity in Central Asia, and soon could be in position to back tough words with actions. The US air force has established a presence at Afghan bases in Baghram and Kandahar, as well as at Hanabad in Uzbekistan and at Manas in Kyrgyzstan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. These facilities can help the US military quickly establish air superiority throughout Central Asia, and even into the Middle East. At the same time, Tehran is concerned that it is becoming surrounded by secular regimes from Turkey to Azerbaijan to Afghanistan, regimes that may provide a different development model for Iran, which is grappling with widespread unemployment among young people. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archives.]

Not only are Iran’s leaders concerned over the US buildup, so are officials in Russia and China. Indeed, some Russian generals now blame Russian President Vladimir Putin for "losing" Central Asia. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archives.]

US President George W Bush has signaled to the international community that Washington reserves the right to extend the war on terrorism to other countries. Iran, Iraq and North Korea were the three "names named" by Bush in his State of the Union address in late January as future potential targets in the campaign against terrorism. "Even 7,000 miles away, across oceans and continents, on mountaintops and in caves, you will not escape the justice of this nation," Bush said in his address.

Bush did not declare war on these states, but warned them: "My hope is that all nationals will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own."

While the harshest words in Bush’s State of the Union were reserved for Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the language on Iran was unambiguous: "Iran aggressively pursues� weapons (of mass destruction) and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom."

Thus, the President addressed the Iranian nuclear program built around the Russian nuclear power reactors at Bushehr, as well as Iran’s ballistic missile program. Many Western experts suspect these projects are aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons.

Condoleeza Rice, Bush’s National Security Adviser echoed the president. She addressed Iran in a January 31 speech to a conservative political organization. "Iran’s direct support of regional and global terrorism and its aggressive efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction belie any good intentions it displayed in the days after the world’s worst terrorist attacks in history," Rice said. Iranian leaders have given the administration some political cover for such strong language. Only recently, the former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani threatened to use nuclear weapons against Israel.

Tehran’s reaction to Bush’s address was quick and angry: Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi called Bush’s speech "arrogant," and "interference in Iran’s internal affairs." Iran’s response has been to increase its intervention in Afghanistan by starting broadcasts of its television Channel 3 from Tajikistan. Sources in Moscow told EurasiaNet that it is likely that Iran asked the Kremlin for permission to broadcast, and Moscow agreed, knowing full well that such a step would draw Washington’s ire.

Kharrazi’s admission February 5 that Iran had failed to seal its border with Afghanistan against the fleeing al Qaeda terrorists, and angry promises of Tehran’s Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani that if attacked, Iran will fight, are indicators of a developing split in the Islamic Republic’s leadership in the aftermath of President Bush’s State of the Union speech.

Kharrazi vigorously denied that Iran had assisted Islamic militants escape the US onslaught in neighboring Afghanistan. The Iranian foreign minister went on to request US assistance in pursuing and capturing any al Qaeda militant who may have infiltrated Iran.

Russia’s public response to Bush’s State of the Union has been muted. Russian leaders seem intent on keeping open a wide variety of diplomatic and economic options. Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, speaking to the friendly American business audience at the US-Russia business council dinner said that Russia is interested in increasing its share of the global oil and gas market. Asked whether such increase may take a bite out of the OPEC market share, Kasyanov smiled broadly and said, "We are interested in stability. Our country is rich in (natural) resources. We will be happy to share these resources with our friends."

No wonder, commentators in Moscow and Western Europe pointed out, that there was no official reaction to Bush’s speech by Putin’s Administration. Despite recent disagreements, and Moscow’s unease about the US bases in Central Asia, the anti-American rhetoric of the past has not resurfaced.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration is sending signals that an expanded war on terrorism would not grant carte blanche to new US allies in Pakistan, Central Asia and elsewhere, to intensify domestic repression. Indeed, the campaign against terrorism has been accompanied by a revival of Reagan-like rhetoric in defense of freedom.

"We are committed to a world of � greater democracy and greater human rights for all the world’s people wherever they live. September 11 makes this commitment more important, not less," Rice said.

Editor�s Note: Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.