Middle East conflict may reshape regional ties affecting Central Asia, experts say

The ongoing war in the Middle East is expected to affect Central Asia mainly through indirect channels rather than direct consequences, analysts say. Experts note that the key issues for the region, including Uzbekistan, relate to trade routes, strategic partnerships, and shifting relations among major regional powers.

To assess the potential impact on Central Asia, analysts argue that attention should focus less on the immediate battlefield developments and more on the broader regional consequences of the conflict. These include possible changes in geopolitical alignments, transport corridors, and relations among countries such as Iran, Russia, China, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Indirect effects likely to dominate

According to experts, the direct impact of the war on Central Asia is likely to remain limited. Instead, its influence will be felt through broader geopolitical dynamics.

Geopolitical analyst Eldaniz Huseynov, a researcher at the Nightingale think tank, believes the conflict’s implications for Central Asia may unfold through three main trends.

The first concerns Iran. If the political system in Iran remains intact and the current theocratic government withstands the war, Tehran may move closer to Moscow. Such a development could strengthen Russia’s role in southern transport corridors passing through Iran and Afghanistan.

The second trend involves China. In the broader Asian context, Beijing may begin paying greater attention to Central Asia as a stable neighboring region. Given the area’s relatively limited transport connectivity, China could increase its influence over the five Central Asian republics.

The third factor relates to Afghanistan. Facing difficulties due to tensions with Pakistan and disruptions to access routes through Iran, Afghanistan may seek deeper integration with Central Asia and Russia through northern transport routes.

Trade routes and regional connectivity

The prolonged nature of the armed confrontation has also raised questions about Central Asia’s long-standing ambitions to secure access to the Indian Ocean.

According to Huseynov, geography continues to present major challenges for the region. Infrastructure remains underdeveloped, while international sanctions continue to impose structural constraints on connectivity and trade.

International trade specialist Valijon Turakulov similarly believes that the consequences of the war will mostly be indirect.

He noted that in a globalized world, events in one region inevitably influence other countries. At the same time, certain developments arising from the conflict could also create limited opportunities, depending on how regional trade routes and partnerships evolve.

Debate over the war’s objectives

The latest escalation in the Middle East began on February 28, and the conflict has sparked debate over the strategy behind it.

According to the publication Foreign Policy, statements by representatives of the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump regarding the launch of the war have been inconsistent.

Analysts cited by the magazine argue that the core objective of the war remains unclear. While the Pentagon has rejected claims that the aim is regime change in Iran, the stated goal of preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons has also been questioned. In June of last year, Trump said Iran would never be able to obtain such weapons.

Observers say the absence of a clearly defined strategy could make the war costly and politically risky, potentially weakening support for the Republican president among voters if the conflict continues for a prolonged period.