What follows below is the translation of an article by Resul Bekhan that first appeared in Russian in Oasis, an online publication focussing on Central Asian affairs. It is a little wandering, although there are some interesting points of speculation on relations between Iran and Turkmenistan and the consequences that further U.S. military intervention in the region could have for the respective countries:

The threat of a repetition of the Iraqi scenario in the Caspian region does not worry only Iran, which has nonetheless defied UN objections to its nuclear ambitions, but is also source of concern to its neighbours. Turkmenistan, blanketed in its positive neutrality, is among those to be unnerved. Not least among its worries is the existence of a large diaspora across the border that, in the event of a mass migration into Turkmenistan, could bring about unforeseen consequences, including the overthrow of the current regime in Ashgabat.
The present Turkmen ruler Saparmurat Niyazov may well be nervous as the United States’ influence continues to grow in the region. George Bush and his White House administration has made it quite clear that the “development of democracy and human rights is inextricably linked with the long-term security of the United States”. As if to confirm this, one could cite the recent experience of the Uzbek leader Islam Karimov, who turned away from Washington after the events in Andijon.
Turkmenbashi has methodically conducted a series purges of cadres – in one fell swoop his has managed to rid himself of his longest standing colleagues – the General Prosecutor Atajanova, deputy Prime Ministers Gurbanmuradov, Adoigdiev, Tachnazarov, chief of the presidential administration Saparov and other many others; on every occasion the purged individual has been accused of potentially “contentious silence”. Notwithstanding the fact that the Turkmen leader has long turned himself into a hermit, he nonetheless set off this winter for Moscow, while in spring he made for Beijing, being careful to prepare carefully for the trip – sources close to the talks reveal that the demarche on previous policy may be connected with an appeal for assistance in the event of U.S. operations in the region of the Caspian basin. As could be expected, future immunity was substantially offered in exchange for a big slice of the gas pie. Vladimir Putin was promised stability in long-term relations in the gas trade and well as a guarantee to apply pressure on the “Orange” Ukrainians. Hu Jintao was given assurances about the advantageous price of Turkmen gas from the Amu Darya, thus giving the Chinese access to resources formerly claimed by such companies as Shell and ExxonMobil.
According to data from the last few years and the first quarter of 2006, Iran is Turkmenistan’s second largest trading partner after Ukraine. At the the beginning of the last century this would have been inconceivable; even Niyazov himself once revealed that his grandfather had been exiled to Siberia for cross-border trade with Iran. Even so, the Iranian brand does not enjoy a particularly sterling reputation in Ashgabat these days. The city’s taxi drivers do not rate Iranian Renaults bought across the border particularly highly, complaining of how they “fall apart on the road”. Pediatricians also warn against buying apples and tangerines from the neighbouring Mazandaran province, noting that they are stuffed with chemicals. Terrible tragedies are said to have occurred after the use of gas ovens imported from Iran; entire families have died from intoxication – in early autumn five such incidents were noted in the Kopet-Dag region alone.
On the level of large-scale industry, Iran has seriously hindered the progress of Turkmen operations on the Caspian shelf. It has been three years that extended and wearying dialogue has been conducted over the operations in the southern Caspian by Russian companies, among them Lukoil and Zarubezhneft. The problem is that the area in concern is situated near Iranian waters and the authorities of that country have endeavoured even to sabotage Turkmen counterproposals to join the Zarit consortium (which the Russian companies are working on).
At the same time, the leaders of the respective countries, with a shared border of almost 2,000 kilometres, always have something to talk about – the last few years have seen the building of a gigantic dam in the cross-border area, a working railway connection, a energy bridge to Turkey, and a pipeline for the transport of gas to northern Iran from western Turkmenistan. Thanks to Turkmenistan, Iran has managed resist international isolation, while Turkmenistan have seriously considered using Turkey as a transit towards Europe, thereby avoiding the Russian route.
People in Ashgabat are perplexed by the fact that since the rise to power in Tehran of the radically inclined Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new leader has failed to meet with Niyazov. Meanwhile, when his predecessor Mohammed Khatami was first inaugurated, he met with his Turkmen counterpart. The emotional Ahmadinejad, it is said, nurses a grievance against Iranian Turkmens, who did not vote for him during the presidential elections. It is also symptomatic that according to reports of human rights organisations, the Turkmen Ministry of Foreign Affairs has recently been limiting the issuance of entry visas to Iranian citizens, even denying the necessary documentation to sporting representatives. At the same time, a concerted effort has been undertaken in the Turkmensahra to the end of integrating ethnic groups with the Iranian population, including the ethnic Turkmens. In the end, Turkmenistan appears to have ended up in the epicentre of an information war between the United States and Iran.
Some Western observers have claimed that Ashgabat has admitted Iranian military officials to bases near the frontier and has even assured Iranian leadership of temporary asylum in the event of war. These suggestions were made by the U.S.-based Eurasian Transition Group (ETG). It is noteworthy that before the Afghan war another NGO, the Eurasia Group, which is based in New York, alleged that Osama Bin Laden would seek refuge in the gorges next to Turkmenistan were the Taliban to be overturned.
Yet on an official basis, Teheran is handling the situation completely differently. According to the Chairman of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani, the United States has been carrying covert operations on Turkmen and Azeri territory on the Iranian frontier. Egyptian daily Al-Ahram has also reported that [Larijani] has intimated that Iran could potentially retaliate against any possible attack by launching strikes against the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline or on petroleum installations inside Azerbaijan. Tehran has also made indirect threats to Ashgabat, which has been subject of recent encouragement on the part of the United States to construct a Trans-Caspian pipeline across the seabed to Azerbaijan and Georgia, a project to which Iran is staunchly opposed.
Emissaries from Washington and Teheran regularly knock on Turkmenbashi’s door. To give one example, the issue of regional safety was raised, shortly before Niyazov’s Moscow visit, by a prominent representative of the U.S. State Department Matthew J. Bryza. Following his talk with Niyazov [January 12-14, 2006], Bryza noted the “important role Turkmenistan can play in bolstering energy security by injecting more commercial competition in European energy market. Unusually lively activity was also displayed by Iran’s ambassador to Turkmenistan, Goljam-Reza Ansari, when he remarked that the West and the United States are afraid of Iran becoming an advanced world scientific superpower. Ansari was quoted by the IRNA news agency as having said that “the Americans are afraid that Iranian skills and knowledge supported by the Islamic doctrine could transform [Iran] into one of the world’s most advanced scientific nations, and it is for this reason that so much pressure is being applied to the country”.