Follow us on social

472258-scaled

Russia urges Afghanistan’s neighbors not to welcome US forces

Uzbekistan has been discussed as the most likely contender to accept some sort of U.S. military presence, despite Tashkent's denials.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

Russia’s foreign minister has asked Central Asian states bordering Afghanistan not to host U.S. or NATO forces, following recent reports in American media that Washington continues to put out feelers to establish some sort of military presence in the region.

“We again call upon the countries neighboring Afghanistan not to allow a military presence on their territories by U.S. or NATO forces, who plan to redeploy there following their departure from Afghanistan,” Sergey Lavrov said on October 27.

His remarks were addressed to all of Afghanistan’s neighbors, which include the Central Asian states of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, as well as China, Iran and Pakistan.

Of all these, Uzbekistan has been held up as the most likely contender to accept some sort of U.S. military presence, even as Tashkent consistently denies it is on the agenda.

Lavrov made his statement two weeks after U.S. media reported that Pentagon officials were part of a U.S. delegation that paid a visit to Uzbekistan during which military cooperation was discussed.

“Top of the agenda will be the possibility of housing ‘over the horizon’ counterterrorism forces, an arrangement that would allow the U.S. military to more easily surveil and strike targets in Afghanistan,” the Politico website reported on October 13, citing “a defense official and a congressional official briefed on the trip.”

“I’m concerned about the notion that the U.S. can keep eyes and ears inside Afghanistan now that we’re outside,” Politico quoted August Pfluger, a House Foreign Affairs Committee member from Texas who was part of the delegation, as saying.

“Having a friend in the region in geographic proximity to that potential terrorist safe haven is important tactically and strategically.”

Tashkent immediately denied reports of ongoing talks about hosting a U.S. military or counterterrorism presence, which have periodically surfaced in the U.S. media since April, months before Afghanistan fell to the Taliban in August.

The matter “is not being discussed,” Foreign Minister Abdulaziz Komilov told reporters flatly on October 14.

foreign policy doctrine adopted in 2012 prohibits Uzbekistan from hosting foreign troops and bases. A military doctrine that came into force in 2018 reinforced that rule. (With Russia's blessing, the U.S. used the Karshi-Khanabad Airbase in southern Uzbekistan between 2001 and 2005 for missions in Afghanistan. Tashkent evicted the Americans after Washington criticized the 2005 massacre in Andijan.)

It is not in Tashkent’s interest to allow Washington to use its territory for military purposes, suggested Kamoliddin Rabimov, a France-based Uzbekistani analyst.

“To preserve its neutrality and geopolitical independence, official Tashkent should not let itself get dragged into the Afghan conflict, and does not wish to start a new geopolitical experiment for the sake of Washington’s interests, since this would simultaneously complicate relations with Russia, China and the new regime in Kabul,” he told Eurasianet.

Komilov has also ruled out Uzbekistan re-joining the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) – a regional security bloc that Tashkent quit in 2012 – as a result of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

“At least at this moment we do not see a need to restore Uzbekistan’s membership in the CSTO,” Kamilov said on October 22.

“But in parallel, active cooperation is in progress with the Russian Federation and with neighboring states to some degree on security matters.”

Tashkent’s stance on relations with the Taliban government is similar to that of Moscow. Both favor engagement, but stop short of formal recognition.

This month alone, officials from Uzbekistan have held two meetings with Afghan government representatives. Komilov visited Kabul on October 7, and days later Taliban officials visited Termez in southern Uzbekistan, a border town which is a staging post for the dispatch of international humanitarian aid to Afghanistan.

Uzbekistan also held military drills with Russian forces near the border with Afghanistan in August, days before Kabul fell to the Taliban.

This article has been republished with permission from Eurasianet.


C-130 Hercules aircrew members board their aircraft for an Operation Enduring Freedom mission at Karshi-Khanabad Air Base, Uzbekistan, on April 19, 2005. (Photo by Master Sgt. Scott Sturkol).
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: White House April 7, 2025

Polls: Americans don't support Trump's war on Iran

Military Industrial Complex

While there are serious doubts about the accuracy of President Donald Trump’s claims about the effectiveness of his attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, the U.S./Israeli war on Iran has provided fresh and abundant evidence of widespread opposition to war in the United States.

With a tenuous ceasefire currently holding, several nationwide surveys suggest Trump’s attack, which plunged the country into yet another offensive war in the Middle East, has been broadly unpopular across the country.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.