President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev (R) stands in silence after he laid flowers to Uzbekistan's late president Islam Karimov's grave in Samarkand, Uzbekistan on September 12, 2016
During the past two decades, it has always been shown that the US follows the tradition of misinterpretation in chaotic regions. George W. Bush, based on misplaced trust, misrepresentations, and poor predictions, accused Saddam Hussein of having weapons of mass destruction and invaded Iraq in 2003. In the years after Arab Spring, under the pretext of controlling the situation and providing security, some spontaneous popular movements were suppressed and the formation of any anti-West atmosphere was prevented by the US.
In Central Asia, emphasizing the possible succession crisis, extensive American-Western media have constantly been looking for creating opportunities for further presence and involvement of Western organizations and governments in this region. In other words, this tradition of misinterpretation has always been an aid to the US foreign policy in different parts of the world, including Central Asia. In this way, the West has managed to somewhat justify the need for its own minimum presence and involvement in Central Asia.
Russia has also had its own benefits of the development of this assumption by the media references. According to Kremlin decision-makers, the sphere of influence in Central Asia and the Caucasus is an important border for protecting the national security of Russia, and Moscow's behaviors, similar to the era of Tsar and the former Soviet Union, seeks to goal but the exertion of dominance over this region. Given the sensitivity of public opinion on the issue of security, Russia has gotten use of this assumption for pursuing the policy of its security, political, and economic persistence in this region and never spared expressing the possible numerous risks after the current presidents, in order to ensure its future presence and management of the situation.
Despite having numerous benefits in the field of overall interests in the security and identity of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Central Asia has been taken into account less than what happens about the West, for instance. Since many years ago, the assumption of succession crisis in Central Asia, referred to as an inevitable phenomenon, has been one of the most serious areas of research in Iranian research-analytic centers. However, no concrete piece of evidence and strong field data is available indicating the rejection of this assumption, not only crisis has occurred in countries undergoing leadership change but also the political situation seems to be more stable and durable than the past.
This can be viewed from two perspectives; first of all, the media trap of the third powers always exists for justifying their presence and involvement in the political future of the region. Therefore, the ideas proposed by them should not be analytically and mentally ruminated without field research and expert review. On the other hand, the experience of relative rejection of above-mentioned assumption indicates that another major assumption that is raised these days, indicating the likelihood of the spread radical movements to Central Asia and its possible damages, should be seriously taken into account by Iranian foreign policy authorities, from the perspective of both exaggeration of this risk and possibility of lack of occurrence. As a result, after the occurrence and testing the assumption, we will not confirm our relative error in the analysis of conditions, like the latter case.
Mohammad Alavizadeh, an analyst of Central Asia Affairs, is the fellow at Research Institute of Eastern Iran
To comment on this article, please contact IRAS Editorial Board