I’m just saying that if we push too hard to try to prevent Turkmenistan from economically engaging Iran we won’t be acting in their best interests and won’t be looked at as a neutral 3rd party.

While I doubt Bush could find Turkmenistan on a map, the State department, according to Simons, is very interested in cultivating new ties with Turkmenistan and has twice sent a Deputy Undersecretary (the highest level contact we’ve had with them in years) to Ashgabad since Turkmenbashi’s timely demise.

Simons did say, though, and I think Ian quoted him on this, that there is dissent in State between those who want to take a didactic approach with Ashgabad (as has largely failed in Uzbekistan) and those who prefer the carrot rather than the stick. At this point, they’re apparently working on a list of short and long term goals for Turkmenistan and both sides are shuttling diplomats back and forth to work out the details of some new agreements. We are, however, trying not to rub this in the Russian’s face, so we’re not making noise about it, and according to Simons, there is absolutely nothing in the works for airbases or military cooperation.

Simons made a very interesting point… although there’s a lot of ground to cover to create any kind of working relationship, we’re basically the only party in the mix who don’t want Turkmenistan’s gas–which puts us in a unique position to be able to advocate for reforms that are genuinely in the best interest of the Turkmen people (medicine, education, human rights, etc) without having to frame everything around gas and pipelines.