America and its allies share pessimistic efforts to engage in post-Taliban Afghanistan, while regional powers, although suspicious of each other's intentions, stand in opposition.
Author: Abdul Naser Noorzad, security and geopolitics researcher, especially for “Sangar”
Why are the region and the extra region in a mental pessimism, trying to play the security game in the field of Afghanistan? This question can only be answered by the security mystery theory. That is, basically, because the logic governing the regional and extra-regional approach in the post-American phase in Afghanistan is neo-realism, offensive and defensive neo-realism intersect in the same direction.
This situation is called a security puzzle, in which player (A) takes more security measures to protect himself, but player (B) sees it as an action to de-security himself. The prevailing situation first starts from the mentality of security players towards each other, which is also called constructivism, but when the mentality is reflected in action, the situation becomes secure and the security puzzle prevails.
In simpler terms, the new foundation of defensive realism is derived from the theory of international politics of Kenneth Waltz, who claims that the chaotic or anarchic structure of the international system encourages governments to adopt a moderate and tolerant policy to increase their security. In contrast, aggressive neorealism claims that states increase their power to achieve security by achieving dominance and hegemony. According to defensive realists, the expansionism of offensive realists causes the reaction of governments that want to maintain the balance of power, so it reduces their security. Defensive realism does not deny the reality of differences between states or states' motivation for expansionism, but believes that such states are exceptions.
The Afghanistan crisis is the result of a security puzzle that has arisen in order to maintain and expand the interests of regional and extra-regional powers. Even the withdrawal of the United States of America from Afghanistan, due to its presence, was questionable and surprising for the regional powers. This situation still dominates the minds of prominent players in the region, as to how America was ready to leave Afghanistan after twenty years of presence and enormous financial and economic costs.
This analysis can be studied in two cases: First, the majority of players influencing Afghanistan's security and politics have a regional position. Therefore, their mentality in Afghanistan has a reciprocal effect on the situation in Afghanistan. Second: The trans-region has to reach out to the region to pursue its security policies. At the same time, the extra-regional dependence on the region for pursuing its policies is increasing strongly; The region also has a kind of pessimism or partly optimism towards extra-regional policies.
I have written this issue in detail in the article "Hindu Kush in the New Great Game", but what is meant by the security puzzle that was briefly discussed in the said article? Basically, the logic of the security puzzle is the pessimism of the players in a field to maintain and expand their security, whether it is an offensive or defensive effort. But if the security players do not even have a presence in the security field and there is no threat to their security, the bad mentality towards other players rules the situation of the security mystery. This is basically what governs the relationship and interaction of regional allies. That is, what the Russians are playing in the field of Afghanistan may be to maintain security and prevent security threats that Moscow has recognized as serious; While Iranians and Chinese, with a sense of pessimism, are trying to observe it. The same can be the case with other security players.
According to what prominent security players are doing in the field of Afghanistan; Whether this role is security or not, or whether players (A) and (B) are in the field interacting with the Taliban, player (C) must have the logic of the security puzzle in his mind to pursue his security obsessions. The sense of skepticism and security concern makes the field of security issues full of adventure and mixed with security tricks, and security action and reaction creates different security poles.
Now, the case of Afghanistan, which has more of a security aspect and perspective, security players play a role in it, and the mentality of playing in it is based on the logic of the security puzzle "pure security pessimism or its opposite", and it is subject to security fluctuations. As we pointed out in the previous article, the reason why the specific queue of players is not known and the "security benefit logic" prevails in it is affected by the security mystery. For example, if China is present with the Taliban to guarantee its economic, political and security interests, this performance and method automatically, with a spirit of conflict and confrontation and a sense of pessimism, is a security puzzle for Russia, Iran, Pakistan and India. It becomes disguised. If the Russians are trying to have security interaction with the Taliban, it is not only a problem of the Chinese, but Iran and Russia collude in a few cases, and that is about the absence of the US presence in the region.
Meanwhile, the conflicting economic and intellectual interests practically put Tehran in a puzzling situation for the Russians. That is, the perception of security in such situations is simply a preemption of security and that's it. While it is possible that Tehran has a very cautious view of the situation and security interests of the Russians in Afghanistan so as not to be in a security conflict with it, but the Russians consider any kind of performance of Tehran in the field of Afghanistan as security. This is an example of a handful.
On a larger level, the region is pitted against the extra region, and the very logic of the security puzzle dominates the situation. While on a smaller level, neighbors are placed against the region. This is where the components of security become ineffective in the face of the security puzzle among security players, and the process of security becomes one of the main rules in the field of play as a ruling mentality. America, England and the European Union share efforts in a pessimistic interaction in the post-Taliban part of Afghanistan, while the region like Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, India and Russia, while being suspicious of each other's intentions, are in opposition. Neighbors such as Iran, Pakistan, China, and Central Asia each make security efforts to protect themselves from regional and extra-regional security approaches.
So far, we have solved the problem a little with the help of the security puzzle. In another discussion, the issue of geopolitical code and genome will be considered and we will try to use the theories of regional security complex, security puzzle, securitization and structuralism, to analyze more the problem of Afghanistan from the security aspect.
