About a month ago a former president Jimmy Carter said: "Iraq Invasion...One Of The Greatest Blunders That American Presidents Have Ever Made". He is right. It bugs down the US military in the midst of a civil war, it damages the US reputation around the globe, and it costs hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Today I want to explain a consequence that will cost America geopolitically.
About a month ago a former president Jimmy Carter said: "Iraq Invasion...One Of The Greatest Blunders That American Presidents Have Ever Made". He is right. It bugs down the U.S. military in the midst of a civil war, it damages the US reputation around the globe, and it costs hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Today I want to explain a consequence that will cost America geopolitically.
So imagine if we did not invade Iraq? Imagine if we would have finished Taliban in Afghanistan, gunned down Bin Laden and secured our hawkish eye on Iran’s nuclear program. How could have this changed the US position in the region? For one, it would have allowed the U.S. to closely monitor Iran and Iraq. Secondly, it would have created more influence over the former republics of USSR in the Central Asian region which in return equated to less power for Russia. At last, it would have kept the growing China out of the region’s resources.
We will soon witness who will dominate the world’s important energy resources in Central Asia. United States and the rest of the West, Russia, China and Iran are strong contenders for the vast resources in the Middle East and Central Asia. While most of oil is located in the Middle East, a lot of natural gas is located in a Central Asian country of Turkmenistan. Those of you who never heard of the country, Turkmenistan was formerly known as one of the republics of the former Soviet Union, and for 21 years was ruled by one of the most ruthless and megalomaniac dictators known to humankind Saparmurad Niyazov. Niyazov later renamed himself Turkmenbashi(Father of the Turkmen). In the years since the Soviet dissolution, he crafted a cult of personality that included erecting an army of golden statues of himself in the capital, Ashgabat. He also used his new appellation to rename everything from a port to a meteorite, altered the months of the year to more accurately reflect his "central role in human history," created a spiritual guidebook of his personal wisdom that has largely replaced all other texts in the country's educational system, had a self-styled theme park built and produced a line of household products bearing his name that includes a Turkmenbashi vodka in his ostensibly Muslim nation. He was proclaimed to be president for life. But on Dec 21st, 2006 he died of a cardiac arrest at the age of 66.
Earlier I blogged on what has been happening in Turkmenistan since his death: how the Constitution was changed to suit his successor, how the People’s Council of 2,500 members unanimously voted for the successor but still decided to have the election on Feb 11th, 2007 to "keep things formal". The successor whose name is Gurbanguli Berdymuhammedov promised to follow the policy of the "great" Turkmenbashi. However, who will he be most influenced by outside of Turkmenistan remains unclear.
So what is up for grabs in Turkmenistan? Here’s a part of the analysis from Stratfor:
"Turkmenistan is a desert state slightly smaller than Texas located north of Iran in Central Asia. Its biggest claim to fame (aside from Turkmenbashi himself) is that it is believed to be the home of the world's fifth-largest natural gas supply. Currently, its existing infrastructure is Soviet-era and creaking (Niyazov's purges extended to all facets of society), and it sends nearly all of its natural gas exports -- about 67 billion cubic meters per year -- north and west to Russia. Without those shipments, Russian state energy firm Gazprom would find it impossible to both satisfy domestic Russian natural gas demand and fulfill its export contracts with Europe and Turkey.
Turkmenistan's natural gas fields -- the ones that are currently being exploited and those that have never been touched -- are often pointed to as sources for potential energy infrastructure projects that could send natural gas to South Asia via Afghanistan, or to Europe via a sub-sea Caspian pipeline. If Gazprom, the world's largest producer, shipper and exporter of natural gas, thinks Turkmenistan is of critical importance, one gets an idea of just how big the economic fallout from a presidential death in a country with no real leaders could be.
But the economic implications of Niyazov's demise are merely the tip of the geopolitical iceberg. What will soon begin is a free-for-all over the future of the territory.
Russia must have Turkmen natural gas to keep its policy of using energy as a foreign policy hammer going; replacing Turkmen supplies would take a decade and tens of billions of dollars in cash that Gazprom simply does not have. This policy is the foundation of Russia's grand strategy, and there is little Moscow would not do to ensure that it gets its way.
For Iran, Turkmenbashi's death presents an opportunity. Turkmenistan is the borderland between the Persians on one hand and the Central Asian tribes and the Russians on the other. Historically, invasions of Persia have come from two directions: west and north. Iranian policy vis-à-vis Iraq to the west is something Stratfor has discussed at length, and in order to secure that border, Tehran has masterminded events to turn Iraq into a quagmire for the United States. To secure its north, Tehran is very likely to contemplate measures of a similar scope. Indeed, the majority of Turkmenistan's 5 million people live within a few miles of the Iranian border. An invasion would be logistically simple, strategically sound and impossible for any power to counter.
Notably absent from this game is the West. The United States has a handful of troops outside of Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, about 1,000 miles away, and its forces in Afghanistan cannot even think of being redeployed. It has tried to secure base rights in Turkmenistan to support its Afghan operations only to be rebuffed by Niyazov himself. The Europeans might like the idea of accessing Turkmen energy, but they utterly lack the ability to project power into the heart of the Asian landmass. Similarly, the former Turkmen opposition -- while eager to return home -- lacks the gravitas, following and unity to play a significant role.
Optimistic Americans or Europeans might think Niyazov's death provides them an opening, and indeed they could secure some provisional deals. But the Iranians and Russians -- who have far more tools at their disposal in Turkmenistan -- would likely wipe away those deals, and the Turkmen dealmakers behind them, within days.
This means that all eyes should be on Moscow and Tehran for the next few months. For the past two years, the geopolitical strategies of these two countries -- to tie down the Americans -- have been relatively in sync. But now there is a prize that both desperately want, and one that cannot be easily shared. With former Russian spies being poisoned in London and militants raging in Iraq, the world should know full well that these powers do not play softly when the stakes are high. "
So imagine what if we never invaded Iraq, finished Taliban in Afghanistan and kept our hawkish eye on the region? The blunder Jimmy Carter is talking about was a terrible mistake on behalf of the Bush Administration to play to the tune of Iran and Russia and invade a country that posed no immediate threat to America.