A significant conflict has unfolded in the United States over who should control the application of powerful generative AI models in military contexts. During contract negotiations, the U.S. Department of Defense (Pentagon) demanded more extensive, effectively unlimited, access to Anthropic’s AI model, Claude. Anthropic refused, and the dispute quickly escalated into a federal political decision.

What did the Pentagon want?

According to Reuters, the disagreement centered around the terms of use. The military insisted that Anthropic loosen or rewrite the restrictions on Claude’s use so that it could be employed "for any lawful purposes" in defense-related activities. Meanwhile, Anthropic sought stronger, more specific prohibitions on certain use cases. The dispute also involved deadlines for contract acceptance, with the Pentagon negotiating with multiple suppliers of large language models.

Why Anthropic said "no"

Anthropic’s public stance is centered on two key “red lines”:

·         The AI must not be used for mass internal surveillance.

·         The AI must not be used in fully autonomous lethal systems without human oversight.

These points, according to Reuters and The Guardian, were non-negotiable for the company, even at the cost of losing some government contracts.

Political outcome: federal agencies ordered to stop using Anthropic

The situation quickly escalated beyond closed-door negotiations. Reuters reported that, amid tensions, the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced they would stop using Anthropic's products, citing a presidential directive. The company was also labeled as a "supply-chain risk," effectively blocking its access to much of the federal market and opening the door for competitors to vie for defense contracts.

Competitors’ response: the OpenAI example

In response to pressure on Anthropic, OpenAI announced a deal to deploy its technologies in the U.S. Department of Defense’s classified networks. However, this agreement sparked an internal debate within the industry and among experts. The Verge noted that the term "any lawful use" could be problematic, as what’s considered "lawful" in intelligence or surveillance often has a broad, evolving interpretation.

OpenAI, in an official statement, asserted that its agreement includes "layered" safeguards and clear "red lines," urging that such conditions should be accessible to all AI companies, not just one.

Internal rebellion in big tech: employees sign open letters

The issue has sparked notable responses from employees within tech companies. TechCrunch, Forbes, Business Insider, Axios, and Engadget reported on an open letter signed by hundreds of Google employees and dozens of OpenAI staff. The letter expressed solidarity with Anthropic's position, calling for limits on military access to AI without explicit restrictions on surveillance and the autonomous use of force.

Why this matters beyond the U.S.

This conflict sets a new precedent for the global AI market:

·         Governments seek guaranteed access to the best models with fewer contractual restrictions.

·         AI developers fear reputational and legal risks if their models are used in contentious scenarios (such as surveillance, target selection, or use of force decisions).

·         There is growing competition over "whose agreement is safer," with the risk that "safety" becomes a PR contest rather than a set of transparent rules.

For Central Asia—and countries where the public sector is a key tech customer—a practical takeaway is clear: AI contracts will increasingly include clauses on acceptable use cases, audits, request logging, data storage, and “red lines.” Without such protections, suppliers may hesitate to engage in government projects. At the same time, authorities will likely push for broader mandates that allow “any lawful use.”

What’s next?

Reuters notes that U.S. agencies are beginning the process of divesting from Anthropic’s solutions, while the defense AI contract market is shifting in favor of competitors. In the coming months, the central question will not be "will AI be used in defense?" but rather, "under what rules and who defines those rules: law, contract, or internal company policy?"

Central Asia is not directly involved in the ongoing military conflict in the Middle East, but it is bound to feel its consequences. The instability surrounding Iran could impact transport corridors and energy routes, and may also negatively affect security in the region—both at the borders and within the republics themselves.

Asia-Plus posed several questions to experts regarding the situation:

·         How will the war in Iran affect security in Central Asia, particularly Tajikistan?

·         What impact will a possible escalation have on border security?

·         Are there risks of increased radicalization in the region?

·         Is there a possibility of refugee flows into Central Asia, including through Afghanistan?

Arkady Dubnov, Political Analyst and Central Asia Expert:

·         Security in Central Asia has long been shaped by the balance of power between global centers: China, Russia, the USA, and the EU. Today, Central Asia is trying to distance itself from the conflict between the US/Israel and Iran, though countries like Kazakhstan and Tajikistan may have different levels of involvement.

This approach seems wise. In this regard, removing US military bases from the region (in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan) has proven to be a farsighted decision, as it reduces the threat to the countries that hosted these bases.

For now, the region faces minimal direct military or forceful actions from the conflict's participants. However, border security in Central Asia is more uncertain. The instability in the southern part of Eurasia can lead to migration increases, economic crises, and other challenges.

Radicalization risks also persist within the region. The younger, more impressionable Muslim population in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan remains susceptible to calls for "justice" in defense of Islam, especially when they perceive threats from "infidels." This sentiment can easily align with emerging narratives about decolonization in Central Asia, particularly with the increasing US interest in exploiting the region's mineral resources.

As for refugees, an influx is possible but unlikely to be significant. If migration from Iran occurs, it will likely be contained within South Asia and the Middle East, possibly extending to Europe and Azerbaijan, especially for ethnic Azeri Iranians.

Anonymous expert on Afghanistan and Central Asia:

·         The situation around Iran is part of a broader plan that may eventually spread to Central Asia. It seems that the destabilization of Iran involves a broad spectrum of tools, including the international terrorist network previously active in Syria and Iraq, with recruits from Central Asia.

Central Asian states, which may face similar scenarios, should study these tactics in advance to prepare and implement preventive security measures.

Currently, discussions in the US, Israel, and among their allies involve the possibility of a ground operation against Iran, potentially using proxy forces. Armed groups from neighboring countries, including Central Asia, could play a role in this.

Another area of concern is the territorial fragmentation of Iran, with possible new formations such as Southern Azerbaijan and Baluchistan emerging, especially given the deteriorating relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. In this context, speculation about the breakup of Pakistan into a Greater Pashtunistan and a separate Baluchistan is becoming more common.

Any state in Central Asia could face similar challenges if separatist movements gain traction in the region.

Andrei Serenko, Director of the Analytical Center of the Russian Society of Political Scientists, Head of the Russian Center for Afghan Policy Studies:

·         The US and Israel's war against Iran will inevitably weaken the Islamic Republic and its position in the region. It is extremely difficult for any country—even one as battle-hardened as Iran—to withstand the military might of the United States and its allies.

It’s difficult to say how significant this weakening will be—much depends on the resilience of Iran’s political system and its ability to regenerate after the blows it is likely to endure. The opponents of Tehran aim to destroy the Islamic Republic. Even if they don’t succeed in this, Iran will take a long time to recover, focusing primarily on its internal issues.

Iran's influence in the external region will diminish, which will negatively affect the balance of power and regional security. Iran has long been a key player in fighting jihadist projects like ISIS, and the loss of this influence will make it harder to combat such threats.

The revival of ISIS and its affiliates in the region is a serious concern. This is particularly worrying for the Central Asian republics, especially since the ISIS faction in neighboring Afghanistan—Wilayat Khorasan—has been vocal about its expansionist plans.

With Iran weakening, the jihadist threat will grow, and Central Asia's borders will be more vulnerable than before. The radicalization of marginalized groups within Central Asian societies is likely to increase, especially as ISIS and similar groups gain inspiration from the weakening of Iran.

If there is little resistance to the possible rise of jihadist activity, it will lead to new conflicts, humanitarian crises, refugee problems, and the destruction of social and economic ties.

The effects of the Iranian crisis will be long-lasting and will almost certainly be detrimental to the Middle East, South Asia, and Central Asia.

Since the outbreak of the new war in the Persian Gulf, missile strikes from Israel and the US have targeted strategic sites in Iran, many of which are located within urban areas. Alongside government officials and military commanders—40 of whom have died from the bombings—ordinary citizens of the Islamic Republic are also suffering.

However, due to widespread internet outages, information about the situation in the country remains scarce. Nonetheless, Western journalists have managed to communicate with local residents. Meduza has compiled reports from The New York Times, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, and Reuters, shedding light on how Iranians are experiencing the onset of this new war.

Residential areas and hospitals in Tehran suffer from airstrikes

According to the Iranian Red Crescent, by Tuesday, March 3, 787 Iranians were confirmed dead as a result of US and Israeli airstrikes. From the very beginning of the new war in the Persian Gulf, the attacks have targeted strategic sites in Tehran and other Iranian cities: besides government buildings and the residence of Ayatollah Khamenei, other bombed sites included the airport and the state television office.

Tehran, a densely populated city with tightly packed buildings, faces severe consequences. In an interview with The New York Times, local residents described how residential neighborhoods are often not separated from government and security agency buildings. Mina, a 61-year-old engineer, recounted how, while watching TV on Sunday, March 1, she heard a huge explosion from a nearby office just three houses away.

"The attacks are so close, the sounds are deafening. Pray we survive this night," Mina said in a voice message sent to The New York Times correspondent.

The blast wave shattered windows and doors in her building and the entire street, Mina reported. Another resident described seeing a massive explosion from her window, saying, "I thought the apartment would collapse. It was terrifying."

In one instance, the strike on a telecommunications tower in Tehran forced the staff of a nearby private hospital, Gandhi Hospital, to evacuate all patients. Additionally, other hospitals in Tehran, as well as two medical centers in different cities, were evacuated. While Al Jazeera reported some damage to several Tehran hospitals, journalists have not confirmed direct hits on these facilities.

Some locals are now afraid to go to hospitals, fearing they could be hit.

"My ten-year-old daughter is on dialysis, and now we are trapped. I'm scared to take her to the hospital. What if they bomb it? Why are you bombing us?" exclaimed Firouzeh Seraj in a conversation with Reuters.

Iranian state media also reported a missile strike hitting a girls' school, Shajareh Tayebeh, in the city of Minab on the first day of the war. According to the Tasnim agency, associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, 148 people were killed and 98 injured. However, Reuters has not been able to verify these figures.

Panic grips Tehran and surrounding cities

As explosions rang out in Tehran on Saturday, people rushed to grocery stores to stock up on food and water, according to The Wall Street Journal. Reuters sources reported long lines at gas stations, and traffic was paralyzed.

Soon after the attacks began, many residents packed their belongings into plastic bags and fled the capital, seeking refuge in the mountains or along the Caspian Sea. The number of those who left is unknown, but many remained in Tehran due to a lack of alternatives.

"People are really scared," said an anonymous oil magnate in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. He himself gathered his belongings and fled Tehran for his villa by the Caspian Sea.

The airstrikes have not been limited to Tehran alone. A resident of Karaj, a city located 42 kilometers west of the capital and a major hub of the military-industrial complex, told the BBC about intense bombings. He counted 17 consecutive explosions on the first night. "The hits were so strong that the house shook. I heard loud explosions. I'm just trying to find a safe place," he added.

In Urmia, near the borders with Turkey and Iraq, a woman complained to Reuters about the total lack of shelters and aid. On Tuesday, March 3, an explosion was reported in the city.

Anger and isolation amid internet blackouts

As reported by various local residents, many Iranians are furious at being cut off from the outside world due to yet another internet blackout in the country. Fatima, an elderly woman from the port city of Bushehr, told Reuters that due to unstable network coverage and power outages, she cannot contact her children.

"My children call me, but the internet barely works. I’m afraid, so afraid, that I will never see them again because I might die in these bombings," she said.

Despite the chaos, there are no reports of widespread unrest in the cities. According to a resident of Karaj speaking with the BBC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps still maintains control at the local level.

"I think the death of Khamenei and the number of people killed during recent protests have only widened the gap between the government's supporters and its opponents," said the resident. Both The New York Times and the BBC reporters noted that checkpoints have been set up throughout Tehran, with security forces thoroughly searching local residents and passing vehicles.

On Tuesday, March 3, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that the heaviest strikes on Iran are still to come.