Christopher Schwartz, blogging at neweurasia.net, believes the cables to show that Turkmenistan (bordered by both Iran and Afghanistan) has a "surprising role" for the U.S., although it is well known that the U.S. Embassy has built border installations at the Turkmen-Iran border and trained Turkmen border guards to better spot contraband in this geographically strategic and sensitive Central Asian nation (not to mention paid Turkmenistan for transit rights on the Northern Distribution Network).
To be sure, there are some analysts who have come to believe that the failure of two successive U.S. administrations to appoint an ambassador to this strategically-vital country for more than four years seems...strange. So strange, that one theory is that there are some forces that just don't want to have a congressional confirmation hearing potentially spotlight sensitive things that go on there. We were told in July, however, by senior officials that this ambassador is now "in the pipeline". (Along with the gas pipelines like Nabucco, presumably.)
Armenia got a dressing-down from the U.S. for selling arms to Iran, Azerbaijan has reservations about embarking on a U.S.-sponsored military "train and equip" program and also would oppose the U.S. fomenting unrest in Iran's ethnic Azeri regions. Those are some of the early revelations, from world of Eurasian security issues, in the first tranche of the latest Wikileaks data dump.
One State Department cable from December 2008 describes how in 2003 Armenia "facilitated Iran's purchase of rockets and machine guns," and those weapons were later found to have been used in an attack in Iraq by Shiite militants that killed one U.S. soldier and wounded six others. According to the cable (via The Guardian):
The direct role of high-level Armenian officials and the link of the weapons to an attack on U.S. forces make this case unique and highly troubling. These transfers may provide a basis for sanctions pursuant to U.S. legal authorities. We propose a series of steps that Armenia will need to take to prevent future transfers, which will be weighed in the consideration of sanctions. We hope to use the threat of sanctions as a tool to generate Armenian responsiveness so that we will not be forced to impose sanctions measures.
The cable also relays a letter from then-Deputy Defense Secretary John Negroponte to Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, threatening sanctions if Armenia doesn't clean up its act:
Notwithstanding the close relationship between our countries, neither the Administration nor the U.S. Congress can overlook this case. By law, the transfer of these weapons requires us to consider whether there is a basis for the imposition of U.S. sanctions. If sanctions are imposed, penalties could include the cutoff of U.S. assistance and certain export restrictions.
The presidents of Iran, Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan gather to talk the Caspian
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is on his way to the NATO summit in Lisbon, amid expectations that the meeting will mark a new era in NATO-Russia relations. But yesterday, at another summit -- in Baku, of the five nations surrounding the Caspian Sea -- he gave a Putinesque, thinly veiled warning about the West sticking its nose in that part of the world:
“If at any moment we relax in our mutual cooperation, there is no doubt that other states will want to interfere with our concerns — states that lack a know-how of or a relationship with the Caspian but whose interest stems from economic interests and political goals” he said.
It's not too hard to figure out what "other states" he might be talking about.
At the summit, the five countries signed a security cooperation agreement, the content of which does not seem to have been reported at all. But an Azerbaijani analyst says Russia's big concern is western military involvement in the Caspian:
Russia stands against any foreign naval forces in the Caspian Sea and is most concerned about NATO naval forces.
(And it probably goes without saying that Iran is even more against such a thing.)
But the overarching issue in the Caspian is how to delineate the waters -- and the oil and gas resources within -- between the five countries. And unsurprisingly, no apparent movement was made on that. The Moscow Times surveyed some analysts on the issue:
Iran's defense minister Ahmad Vahidi has completed a visit to Azerbaijan, and apparently mooted the idea of joint naval exercises between the two countries (and possibly other coastal states Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Russia). Azeri Press Agency reports:
Iran may hold military exercises together with Azerbaijan and other littoral states, Defense Minister of Iran, General Ahmad Vahidi said at the press conference on the outcomes of his visit to Azerbaijan, APA reports.
Iranian Minister said such exercises aim at maintaining peace and stability in the region.
There was no immediate response from any of the other countries about whether they would be amenable to that.
Vahidi did acknowledge that Iran has been building up its military capacity in the Caspian...:
To APA’s question whether Iran’s strengthening its military forces in the Caspian Sea with the new ships will influence the balance of forces in the region, Minister said it will not violate the stability in the Caspian region.
“Iran considers the Caspian Sea the sea of peace, security and friendship. We have got good relations with the littoral states and these steps have been agreed with all,” he said.
... and still said that the sea should be demilitairzed:
"The Islamic Republic of Iran considers the Caspian Sea as the sea of peace and friendship and believes that the sea should remain unmilitary."
At the same time, the deputy foreign ministers of the Caspian littoral states met in Baku and worked on a draft security strategy for the sea, in advance of a November summit (also to be held in Baku).
Russia's announcement last week that it was calling off the sale of S-300 air defense systems to Iran was a big deal -- but the real story may have been even bigger than that, says Dmitry Gorenburg. Moscow has in fact canceled nearly all arms sales to Iran, which represents more than ten times as much business as the S-300. And he concurs with the consensus that it was Russia's desire to get along better with the U.S. that did it:
As far as the specifics of the S-300 decision, I don’t think the Russian leaders were ever all that strongly committed to selling the S-300 to Iran. I think that to some extent, it was always partially a bargaining chip that was used against the U.S. in moments when relations were problematic. So from that point of view, it’s possible that Putin didn’t change his mind at all, but the circumstances changed sufficiently that the balance between Russia’s bilateral relationships with the U.S. and Iran changed sufficiently that it became worthwhile to publicly shift positions on this sale. This would mean that U.S. policies toward Russia were bearing fruit.
Foreign Policy has a good piece on Iran's increasingly active diplomacy in the South Caucasus, and argues that one of Tehran's chief goals is to prevent the U.S. from establishing a military base on Iran's northern border (given that the U.S. already has bases to Iran's east, west and south):
Iran's primary motivation, Blank said, is to keep other countries, particularly the United States, from getting too chummy on its northern border. For Iran, which borders Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan -- all wobbly nations with a significant U.S. military presence -- a U.S. military base in the South Caucasus would be a disaster. Iran is calculating that the way to prevent that from happening is through strengthened alliances -- or at least mitigated ill-will -- with Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. "The message they keep repeating is: We are friends, we are economic partners, but if you allow a U.S. base on your soil, very bad things will happen to you," says a Georgian executive who spoke anonymously in order not to compromise his relationship with Iranian officials. "They are friendly, but the message is clear."
I'm not sure about this: the reasons the U.S. couldn't/wouldn't attack Iran have little to do with physical distance from Iran. It seems possible that Tehran may simply see that a stable, prosperous and friendly region directly to its north would be helpful, regardless of what the U.S. may or may not be doing.
Still, Iran is, of course, taking some shots at the U.S.:
Iran has started production of two missile boats, at one of which will be deployed in the Caspian Sea, Iran's defense minister has announced.
IRAN kicked off mass production of two classes of high-speed missile-launching assault boats today, warning its enemies not to "play with fire" as it boosts security along its coastline...
State news agency IRNA reported that Seraj (Lamp) and Zolfaqar (named after Shi'ite Imam Ali's sword) speedboats would be manufactured at the marine industries complex of the ministry of defence.
Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi opened the assembly lines, saying the vessels would help strengthen Iran's defence forces, IRNA said.
"Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran is relying on a great defence industry and the powerful forces of Sepah (Revolutionary Guards) and the army, with their utmost strength, can provide security to the Persian Gulf, the Sea of Oman and Strait of Hormuz," Mr Vahidi said.
The Seraj would be deployed in the Caspian, but there aren't too many details available about what the boat actually is, and Iran is wont to exaggerate its military capabilities.
"Seraj is a fast moving assault rocket launcher using sophisticated and modern technology," Mr Vahidi was cited as saying by IRNA.
Vahidi says, as one does in these situations, that deploying this ship in the Caspian is purely defensive, but warns that "extraregional powers" (which could he be talking about?) are militarizing it:
All of a sudden, sophisticated Russian air defense systems are popping up all over the Caucasus. First it was (maybe) Azerbaijan, now it's Abkhazia. Via Civil.ge:
Russia has deployed long range S-300 air defense missile system in Abkhazia to protect its airspace and Russian military bases deployed there, Colonel General Alexander Zelin, commander of the Russian air forces, said on August 11.
"We have deployed S-300 system on the territory of Abkhazia, which in coordination with the air defense systems of the land forces is tasked with air defense of the territory," Zelin was quoted by the Itar-Tass, Interfax and RIA Novosti news agencies.
He said that S-300 missile system "will cover only facilities located on the territory of Abkhazia". Air defense of South Ossetia is provided with other systems, Zelin said.
The task of these air defense systems, he said, "is also to prevent violation of Abkhaz and South Ossetian airspace and to destroy any aircraft intruding into thier airspace no matter what their purpose might be."
Georgia responded quickly and, unsurprisingly, tried to involve NATO:
It is NATO, which should be first and for most concerned about Russia's decision to deploy long-range S-300 air-defense system in breakaway Abkhazia, Temur Iakobashvili, the Georgian state minister for reintegration, said on August 11.
"Obviously, such action is one more violation of Sarkozy-Mediated [six-point ceasefire] agreement. If we take into consideration the specifics of this weapon, of course, it is inappropriate against Georgia in view of even theoretical threats because S-300 is a long range missile. It makes us suppose that this step has been taken to change the balance of forces in the region," he said.
Central Asia already has the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Collective Security Treaty Organization -- does it need another collective security organization? Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad thinks so:
Iran's president told the leaders of Afghanistan and Tajikistan on Thursday that the three neighbours could provide a counterweight to NATO in Asia once foreign troops quit the region....
Ahmadinejad said the three countries had all thrown off foreign domination in recent decades and should strengthen economic and security ties and be independent of big powers.
"Many don't find this desirable -- three independent countries forming a powerful friendship in the region, and changing the current situation. None of them is happy about this," he said in part of the meeting which was televised...
"Those who came in from Europe representing NATO, they want to put pressure on China, Russia and India, and if they are confronted by three independent, empowered countries here, then that is an obstacle," he said.
Of course, this is something that the SCO has tried to do for the last ten years. However, they recently decided not to allow Iran to join. That wouldn't have anything to do with the idea behind a new organization, would it?
