Psychological move against Iran – Israel opens embassy in Turkmenistan

Israel's response to the rapprochement between Iran and the Gulf states was to expand its presence north of Iran, with Azerbaijan having a strategic security dimension, while Turkmenistan is probably mainly of psychological importance.

Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen, previously Minister of Intelligence, recently traveled to Turkmenistan's capital, Ashgabat, to inaugurate Israel's new embassy. The Times of Israel reported that Tel Aviv has had an embassy presence in this former Soviet republic for a decade, but Israel's top representative in Turkmenistan has so far operated from hotels and from a temporary office. This now adequately established Israeli diplomatic outpost is of symbolic importance, as it is only 16 kilometers from the Iranian border.

This is probably the most likely reason for this step, which could be mainly intended to put psychological pressure on the Islamic Republic, especially considering that the deepening of Israeli-Azerbaijani relations is taking place during the deteriorating relations between Azerbaijan and Iran. Indeed, at the opening ceremony of the Azerbaijani embassy in Tel Aviv at the end of March, Cohen declared that both countries were part of a so-called "united front against Iran," which drastically increased Tehran's perception of a threat from Baku. To be fair, it should be said that Baku also thinks it perceives an increased threat from Tehran.

Interested readers can get additional insights into this in the analysis set out here. The purpose of referring to the aforementioned analysis is to support the assessment that Israel is expanding its diplomatic presence along Iran's northern periphery, while in parallel Iran is deepening its own diplomatic presence in the Gulf. Both developments certainly required extensive planning, but the timing is therefore astounding.

With the opening of its embassy in Ashgabat, Israel wants to cause increasing discomfort to Iran. Tel Aviv therefore hopes that Tehran will at some point react in such a way that a self-driving cycle of mistrust will infect Iranian-Turkmen relations in the same way that it has already infected Iranian-Azerbaijani relations. At present, the former relationship is actually still fairly stable and mutually beneficial, but one should not overlook the psychological pressure that Israel is currently exerting on this relationship.

From the Turkmen point of view, with the help of Azerbaijan, its Turkish ally and Israel's common partner, this somewhat remote country can continue its gradual opening to the world. In Ashgabat, no one had anti-Iranian intentions when Israel was allowed to build an embassy in this capital, but they were not too naïve about how Iran would perceive this event. For this reason, it can also be interpreted as a symbolic expression of Turkmen sovereignty to show Iran that Turkmenistan is truly independent.

This is important for reasons of national and international power through cultural and ideological means, which in turn is related to the growth of bilateral trade between Turkmenistan and Iran, which is expected to play a greater role in the North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) between Russia and India. The day after Cohen inaugurated the new Israeli embassy in Ashgabat, the Turkmen railway company signed a memorandum of understanding with its Kazakh and Russian partners on streamlining logistics and cooperation along the route.

The following press release explicitly states: "The parties agreed to combine their competencies to create competitive tariffs and seamless transportation of goods from Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to Iran, India, the countries of the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region." This reinforces the assessment that Turkmenistan has no anti-Iranian intentions, but rather wants to show its people and partners abroad that it does not want to fall under the exclusive economic pressure of its southern neighbor.

Without a symbolic expression of sovereignty, such as the opening of the Israeli embassy in Ashgabat, a US campaign in information warfare could have been launched to sow doubts about the country's sovereignty. Some locals could have been mistakenly frightened that their country was "strategically" surrendering to Iran. And this false perception could eventually have served as a trigger for riots and a color revolution.

On the external front, Turkmenistan's close Azerbaijani and Turkish partners could have been manipulated into believing that Iran was tacitly planning to expand its influence there by economic means in order to pressure Ashgabat to better distance itself from Baku and Ankara over time. A multi-sided "security-strategic dilemma" at the expense of Eurasian stability could thus have taken root. But this is exactly what was averted by the opening of the Israeli embassy, which thus greatly worsens the prospects for such a scenario.

Of course, it would be wonderful if Israel and Iran did not compete with each other in third countries. But it would also be unrealistic to expect this, because both states always want to reorient themselves in response to actions by third countries, especially allies of their respective rivals, in order to balance the balance of power.

Iran's rapprochement with its southern Gulf neighbours has been answered by the Israeli side by saying that Israel is expanding its presence along Iran's northern periphery, with the Azerbaijani aspect having clear security and strategic dimensions, while the Turkmen aspect is arguably mainly psychological.

As Iranian-Turkmen trade relations will expand due to their growing role in the NSTC, it made sense for Turkmenistan to declare sovereignty in a symbolic act in order to preemptively avert the false and potentially threatening perception at home and abroad that it was in danger of falling under total Iranian influence. Israel, for its part, was more than happy to comply by opening an embassy there that serves its own purposes, while complementing, as explained, the ambitions of its host.

In summary, Iranian-Israeli interaction throughout the region – and especially on each other's periphery – represents an enduring trend in the New Cold War that will be waged indefinitely. Each of the rivals will continue to try to play off the other in creative ways, which has recently been done through diplomatic channels, instead of focusing on acts of subversion, as before. Nevertheless, it would be premature to conclude that the Iranian-Israeli rivalry will stabilize, although this would be beneficial for all parties involved.

Read more of GR Analysis