Iran’s Unavoidable Influence Over Afghanistan’s Future

Source: Getty
Article
Summary
As the U.S. troop withdrawal approaches, Washington should consider how improving U.S.-Iranian relations can further its long-term goals in Afghanistan and the region.
Related Media and Tools
 

Iran has positioned itself as an important regional actor in Central Asia and is committed to playing a role in neighboring Afghanistan. As U.S. troops draw down their numbers in Afghanistan, Washington should consider how improved U.S.-Iranian relations could further long-term U.S. policy goals in Afghanistan and in the region.

While the future of U.S.-Iranian relations remains unclear, any improvement in the relationship would facilitate the success of U.S.-supported initiatives in Afghanistan: the “New Silk Road” strategy, which seeks to improve Afghanistan’s economic ties with Central and South Asia, and the “Heart of Asia” confidence-building process, which fosters high-level dialogue on security, political, and economic cooperation among Afghanistan and its neighbors. Both are catchwords for Washington’s policy of trying to shift more responsibility for Afghanistan’s reconstruction to the states of the region. But the international sanctions against Iran and the state of U.S.-Iranian relations are making it difficult for policymakers in Washington to implement this regional approach.

Iran’s Close Ties to Central Asia

Iranian leaders pride themselves on being important actors in Central Asia, and they take advantage of all available international forums to make this case. For their part, the region’s other countries maintain normal diplomatic and trade relations with Iran.

The respect accorded to Iran in Central Asia was underscored by the presence of the presidents of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan at Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s inauguration. The presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan attended as well. Uzbekistan, which has kept somewhat more distance from Iran, sent the head of its parliament, as did Russia.

The three Central Asian presidents used their presence to bring up the topics of greatest importance to them. For the Tajiks, who share a language and culture with the Iranians and call Iran a “strategic partner,” this meant discussing Tajikistan’s hydroelectric plans.

Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev used his visit to reiterate his country’s interest in continuing to host the P5+1 nuclear talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, which are under the chairmanship of EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton. Kazakhstan hosted P5+1 sessions in Almaty in February and April 2013.

Transport links were major themes for both the Kazakh and Turkmen leaders. With Iran, these countries are constructing a new railroad to link Uzen in Kazakhstan with Gyzylgaya, Bereket, and Etrek in Turkmenistan and end at Gorgan in the Iranian province of Golestan. The railroad will expand access for the Central Asian nations to Persian Gulf ports.

The Kazakh and Turkmen presidents jointly opened the first section of the railroad on May 11, 2013, during Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov’s official visit to Kazakhstan. The nearly 50-mile Iranian portion was inaugurated later that month.

But international sanctions against Iran have complicated Tehran’s attempts to gain influence in Central Asia. Given Iran’s participation in the project, for example, the new railroad could not secure international multilateral institution funding. Instead, it is being built with funds of the national railway companies of Iran, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan.

Furthermore, Iran is not part of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or the Central Asian Regional Economic Coordination, the ADB’s ten-country partnership that is sponsoring six new transport corridors to better link Afghanistan and Central Asia with Europe and Asia.

Sanctions against Iran have also limited international oil and gas export routes from the region by making it impossible to secure international financing for such projects. While the new rail link will create options for Kazakhstan to send oil by rail to the Persian Gulf, the Kazakhs have been frustrated in their desire to transport “big oil” or “big gas” through Iran. They do, however, supply northern Iran with oil and receive the export income from oil swapped by the Iranians in the south.

Turkmenistan has also had to fund its own projects in Iran. Years before the prospect of shipping large amounts of gas through China became possible, the Turkmen, angered by the terms of trade with Russia, agreed to build a gas pipeline from Korpezhe in Turkmenistan to Kurt Kui in Iran. Built in 1997 with a maximum capacity of 8 billion cubic meters per year (bcm/y), or 282 billion cubic feet per year (bcf/y), 35 percent of the gas went to pay for Turkmenistan’s share of construction costs during the first years. A second Turkmenistan–Iran line, the Dauletabad–Khangiran Pipeline, with a capacity of 12 bcm/y (424 bcf/y) was completed in 2010.

In addition to cooperation on transport, all of the Central Asian countries trade actively with Iran; in 2010 Iran was the fourth-largest exporter to Central Asia, with 4.8 percent of all exports, following distantly behind China, Russia, and the EU. Iran is a major buyer of Central Asian cotton, traditionally purchasing from Tajikistan, but it also became an important source of cotton sales for Uzbekistan after the EU introduced trade restrictions against Tashkent.

Rouhani has signaled the importance of the Central Asian region by deciding to make his first international trip a visit to Bishkek to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit being held there on September 3, just days before the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg. This will also be Rouhani’s first meeting as president with Vladimir Putin.

Iran, an observer in the SCO, has long sought full membership in that organization. But Russia has spoken out against Iran receiving full membership because of the difficulties that this might pose for the organization as a whole given the international sanctions in place against Iran. Afghanistan is also an observer of the SCO, and Turkey just took on this status in April, suggesting that the SCO might well be positioning itself to play a greater role in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2014.

Iran’s Engagement in Afghanistan

Playing a greater role in Afghanistan seems a clear goal of Iran. The two states share a border that is more than 560 miles long, and senior Iranian officials have participated in virtually every major international meeting on Afghanistan that they have been eligible to attend.

Ambassador James Dobbins, who served as U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan in 2001 and was appointed special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan in May 2013, notes that the suggestion that Hamid Karzai should lead Afghanistan was raised by the Iranian delegation to the international conference on Afghanistan in Bonn, Germany, in 2001.

According to Dobbins, he and Javad Zarif, then Iran’s delegate to the conference and today the newly appointed minister of foreign affairs, found informal settings in which to “accidently” meet and hold important substantive discussions. Dobbins noted that Iran pledged $540 million in assistance at the first Tokyo conference in 2002, the largest commitment made by any non-Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nation. Most of this assistance, according to Dobbins, was actually provided.

The U.S.-Iranian relationship soured soon after, when Mohammad Khatami was still president, and deteriorated dramatically during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presidency.

This created a very awkward moment for the United States at the fifth Regional Economic Cooperation Conference on Afghanistan meeting in March 2012. U.S. officials played a major role in helping organize the conference but were left playing more of a backstage role at the event itself given the participation of Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian leader used the occasion to attack the U.S.-led NATO presence in Afghanistan, demanding that reparations be paid to the Afghan people. This prompted the U.S. delegation, led by Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake, to leave the room. But this departure failed to have the desired effect—the room was so enormous that only those seated near the U.S. delegation noticed the delegates’ exit.

Because the U.S. delegation was headed by Assistant Secretary Blake, it ranked way down on the protocol lists for speakers, especially given that Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan were all represented by their presidents. Tajik President Emomali Rahmon also convened a summit of these four presidents in the days before the conference opened, on the occasion of Nowruz, the traditional spring holiday in the region, creating an exclusive format for discussions of Afghanistan’s future in which “outsiders,” including the United States, were not included.

U.S.-Iran Relations and the Future of Afghanistan

There is no reason to think that U.S. priorities on Afghanistan will be of anything other than marginal concern when the Obama administration considers how to deal with the new Rouhani administration.

The lifting of international sanctions against Iran depends on a breakthrough in the P5+1 talks on Iran’s nuclear industry and on the international community being satisfied that Tehran is indeed only pursuing the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

But an improved U.S.-Iranian relationship would yield many other dividends to U.S. foreign policy goals, not the least of which is that it would make the regional solution to Afghanistan’s economic recovery that Washington yearns for a much more realizable goal. Hopefully Javad Zarif and James Dobbins will have new opportunities to negotiate with each other and shape a more productive relationship for Iran, the United States, and Afghanistan.

End of document

About the Russia and Eurasia Program

The Carnegie Russia and Eurasia Program has, since the end of the Cold War, led the field of Eurasian security, including strategic nuclear weapons and nonproliferation, development, economic and social issues, governance, and the rule of law.

 

Comments (2)

 
 
  • Fat Johnson
    1 Recommend
     
    Of course ties with Iran are important for the US, but using Afghanistan as the pretext for discussions with Iran is irrelevant to Afghans. Afghans understand that outsourcing the Afghanistan Question, this time to Iran, is not in the best interests of Afghanistan, though it may reset and refresh relationships with the US, but that is the broader problem with US foreign policy for the region. Well we witnessed what happened when Afghanistan was outsourced to Pakistan. What guarantees are there that Iran will not abuse it's role in Afghanistan, similar to Pakistan, in order to achieve its aim of dominating influence in the region vis a vis Pakistan and India?
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
    • Ed replies...
      I agree that the 'Afghanistan Question' may not be the ideal way forward for 'normalizing' US/Iranian relations, however, it may present a good starting point to 'thaw' the chill. So, it may actually work well as a pretext. Regarding Afghanistan's interest, as being a land-locked nation, it has no choice but to 'outsource' some influence for access to sea ports. Seeing as how the Af/Pak border is highly more populous than the Af/Iran border, I doubt there is even near the same level of 'abuse' that the Iranians could achieve compaired with Pakistan.
       
       
 
Source http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/08/15/iran-s-unavoidable-influence-over-afghanistan-s-future/gii0

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站,进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。