EXPERT: SOUTH CAUCASUS IS THE KEY OUTLET FOR THE US TO CENTRAL ASIA
Regnum, Russia
May 24 2006
“Paradoxical as this may seem, the possible force outcome of the
US-Iran relations is good for both the opponents and the supporters
of a military action against Iran,” Karabakh political scientist
David Babayan says to REGNUM.
He notes that both inside and outside the US there are people who
support and oppose it.
“Many people understand that Iran is geo-strategically important not
only for the Middle East but also for the leading actors in the world
arena. Due to its geographical situation and economic potential that
country is a key target of the US foreign policy. Iran is an immediate
neighbor of the South Caucasus, Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Iraq, the Persian Gulf. Without Iran, the US presence in those regions
will be problematic and expensive. That’s why the US simply needs
Iran as a partner,” says Babayan. He notes that Central Asia, the
South Caucasus and some other regions of the Middle and Central East
are quite vulnerable (there we have unstable Afghanistan and Kashmir)
and that Central Asia borders on Russia, who has quite strong positions
there. One cannot but consider China too, that borders on Central Asia,
Afghanistan and has close relations with Pakistan.
“Besides, today the key outlet for the US to Central Asia is the
South Caucasus, where there is no final stability either and where
Russia is also strong, especially economically. That’s why the West
needs a more stable way to Central Asia. The most reliable way seems
to be Iran. Iran has no borders with the US potential geo-political
rivals, it is stable, it has thousand-year-old culture and statehood
history. Besides, there is a very small possibility of expansionist
foreign policy in Iran, unlike Turkey, where officials now and then
appear with pan-Turkic statements. Even more, by gaining Iran over,
the US will make senseless the Central Asian and Middle East countries’
orientation towards its potential geo-political rivals – Russia and
China,” says Babayan.
If the US takes Iran in the sphere of its interests – by force or
by any other means – it will gain advantage not only in the region
but in the whole world and will hold this strategic initiative for
decades. “Although Iran has quite a strong military arsenal, in
quantity and quality it is not enough for rebuffing a well-organized
large-scale military operation; especially as before the operation –
if it is launched – the US will try to maximally damage Iran’s military
arsenal by massive air strikes. And if Iran acts like Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan or Iraq did – that is, if it continues deluding itself
that it can beat the Americans or NATO forces on its territory,
it is very much likely to be beaten itself,” says Babayan.
If the war still begins, it may well embrace the neighboring countries
too – something that will destabilize the whole region. “It is very
much possible that the conflicting sides will wage this war in an
asymmetrical way – that is, by holding force actions in their own
territories or the territories of their allies and, possibly, by using
radioactive matters. This is quite possible, especially as this is the
only way for Iran to hold out in the war or to prevent it at all,”
says Babayan. He notes that this is exactly what the opponents of
war can hope for – if the US fails in Iran – by losing the war or by
not starting it at all for fear of some unpredictable consequences –
it will have to review its foreign political strategy and, possibly,
to give up its military plans in other regions. “This will be a kind
of success for those outside the US, while for those inside it, this
will mean stability and hundreds, if not thousands, of saved lives
of American soldiers,” says Babayan.