Tweet
Foreign bases in Azerbaijan to damage regional security - analytical group
Zerkalo, Baku
20 Nov 04
The deployment of foreign military bases in Azerbaijan will have a
negative impact on the whole system of regional security, an Azeri
analytical group has said. Commenting in Azeri daily Zerkalo on
recent reports about the possible US military presence in the country,
the analytical group said that such a move would change the regional
balance in Azerbaijan's favour, but this would be temporary and the
country would have to face "legal and illegal" protests from its
neighbours, Russia and Iran. The USA is trying to use Azerbaijan as
a bridgehead for invading Iran since it is impossible to do it from
Iraq and Afghanistan. In this connection, Azerbaijan should conduct
a well-balanced policy taking into account the interests of all the
regional powers and avoid deploying foreign troops on its territory,
the analytical group said in conclusion. The following is an excerpt
from the CGR analytical group's report in Azerbaijani newspaper
Zerkalo on 20 November headlined "Azerbaijan is a bridgehead for a
US invasion of Iran" and subheaded "Or we should not hurry to deploy
American bases here"; subheadings inserted editorially:
Obvious contradiction
The problem of the possible deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan is
already not new and has become a subject of heightened interest from
time to time not only in the Azerbaijani, but also in the Western
press. For example, about a month ago the American news agency United
Press International (UPI) reported that American military bases might
be deployed in the "Armenian-occupied" Azerbaijani districts - Fuzuli,
Cabrayil and Zangilan.
Following these reports, the same Western press abounded with news
about possible US strikes on Iran. Of course, the mutual link between
these two actions does not cause any doubt, while opinions on whether
it is true or not differ. On the one hand, everybody remembers
statements by the deputy commander of the US troops in Europe, Air
Force Gen Charles Wald, who is well-known for his frequent visits to
Azerbaijan, that Washington has no intention of setting up a permanent
base in the South Caucasus. We should remind you that he said this
during his visit to Baku in July this year.
On the other hand, former State Secretary Colin Powell recently made
another interesting statement saying that the USA has no intention
of overthrowing the current regime in Iran. The contradiction between
influential media and statements by US officials is too obvious. The
following issue is also of interest: usually, information about alleged
plans to punish Iran is leaked in the West and then commented on at
the local level. Therefore, we can suppose that a certain process of
influencing public opinion is under way with all the consequences
that ensue. It is exactly this approach that makes it possible to
analyse the situation that has developed around Iran, the Middle East
and the South Caucasus as a whole.
Iran greatest threat to America
To say that the USA has certain plans with regard to Iran means to say
nothing. But these plans should be examined in the context of the new
Middle East doctrine put forward by the Bush administration by the end
of his first year in office and entitled the "Greater Middle East"
project, which has far-reaching consequences. This plan envisages
a complex programme of pacifying and democratizing the Middle East
by creating a system of financial and organizational mechanisms of
influencing the region - the "Greater Middle East" concept. The purpose
of the programme is to minimize all types of threats that currently
stem from the region, create prerequisites for long-term stabilization
on the basis of democratic choice and to observe the minimum set of
"rules of the game" in the domestic and international arena. It is
clear that Washington will not confine itself only to peaceful methods
to achieve these goals. Among other countries of the Middle East, it is
exactly Iran that poses the greatest threat to American interests in
the region. Iran is also the strongest state of the Middle East from
a military point of view, and even Israel, which has nuclear weapons,
is afraid of it. It is no secret that Tehran is trying to spread its
influence to the Muslim countries of the Middle East and, in some
way, is appropriating the role of a leader that unites the disunited
Muslim countries. Although the success of such a mission causes doubt.
Attack on Iran to cause deep crisis in Western economy
However, even such attempts by Tehran cause a sharply negative reaction
from the USA. For this reason, it is no surprise that Iran is turning
into the main object of attacks by Washington. To some extent, the
increasing confrontation between the USA and Iran is furthered by
Iran's aspirations to influence the processes that are taking place
in Iraq, namely to bring pro-Iranian forces to power. Nevertheless,
we can presume that American wrath against Iran will not turn into
hostilities for the time being. First, oil prices are very high in
the world and will skyrocket even higher if the situation in Iran
destabilizes, as a result of which the Western economy will fall into
a deep crisis. Second, European Union countries, which have great
interests in Iran, unlike the USA, especially in the same fuel issue,
have shown a sharply negative reaction to all talk about it.
[Passage omitted: British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said that
a war on Iran will claim hundreds of thousands of lives]
USA to use Azerbaijan as a bridgehead
The war on Iran is not linked only to diplomatic difficulties. It
does not stand up to criticism from a military-tactical point of view
either. Analysts think that, in theory, the USA might use Armenia,
Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan as a bridgehead for the
invasion. Armenia can be automatically taken off the list as it is an
ally of Iran and Russia. As for Syria, US relations with this country
are the subject of a separate article. In principle, nothing will stop
the USA from using Iraq and Afghanistan as a bridgehead. However,
neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are suitable for this purpose since
guerrilla warfare is going on in those countries. The only choice is
Azerbaijan whose territory the USA could see as a possible bridgehead
for an invasion of Iran. But to this end, it is necessary to deploy
the aforesaid bases, which even Russia does not have in Azerbaijan.
In the early 1990s, Azerbaijan managed to get Russian troops withdrawn
from its territory. We remember that as a far-sighted politician the
late [Azerbaijani President] Heydar Aliyev had stated that not only
Russia, but also any other foreign country will not have military
bases in Azerbaijan. Noting that Azerbaijan has sufficient forces of
its own, he even opposed the arrival of US special security forces
to guard the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Not by chance did the
Milli Maclis pass a law forbidding the deployment of foreign troops
on Azerbaijani territory. Azerbaijan's position on this issue is
clear and understandable, although the USA is almost the only great
power that has interests nearly in all four corners of the world and
military cooperation with that country is of special importance to
Azerbaijan. It is also necessary to take into account the geopolitics
of the region. Our country is geographically situated in a region
where the interests of several centres of power, even non-regional
ones, are concentrated.
The East-West, North-South transport corridors, strategic pipelines and
abundant hydrocarbon resources are ideas that are linked to Azerbaijan
first of all. All this necessitates the conduct of a well-balanced
policy, taking into account the position of all the countries that
are interested in the region in order to preserve regional stability,
balance and ensure the country's economic development.
Foreign troops in Azerbaijan to damage regional security
For this reason, any deployment of foreign military bases in
Azerbaijan will have a negative impact on the whole system of regional
security. Yes, such a political move would allow us to change the
regional balance in our favour, but this would be temporary and as a
result, Azerbaijan would have to face legal and illegal protests from
the rest of the centres of power. Of course, it would be extremely
foolish to discard neighbouring Russia and Iran.
Although our northern neighbour is lagging behind the USA in many
parameters, it does not necessarily mean that Moscow is going to
give up so easily its positions in the post-Soviet area. The fact
that Russia is giving open support to candidate Viktor Yanukovych in
the presidential elections in Ukraine, is planning to strengthen the
Russian bases in CIS countries, especially in Central Asia, with new
aircraft and other battle-worthy "hi-tech" units and is tiring its
neighbours out by closing the Russian border demonstrates once again
that Moscow has considerable military-political and economic resources
to influence the situation in the CIS region. An American-Russian
confrontation because of Azerbaijan also looks unrealistic. As Charles
Wald pointed out, Russia should not be worried about any redeployment
of US troops from western Europe. He said that the USA looks on Russia
as a "strategic ally, especially from a military point of view".
For this reason, the deployment of some bases in Azerbaijan seems to
be a hopeless thing. It is not by chance that commenting on the fuss
about the deployment of foreign bases in Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani
Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov stated that our country is not
having consultations with anyone to allow its territory to be used
for attacking the Islamic Republic of Iran. So, information about
such US intentions allows the USA itself to learn in more detail the
international community's reaction to its strategic intentions. But
this is not the end of it. The reports circulating around the world
about a war allegedly being prepared against Iran are an integral
part of America's foreign policy tactics.
This is a sort of information pressure - a policy of verbal deterrence
against Iran in order to make it give up its political ambitions and
weapons of mass destruction. Is this policy effective? At least news
was recently circulated around the world that Iran has agreed to stop
enriching uranium, but as the head of the Iranian Supreme National
Security Council, [Hasan] Rowhani, pointed out, this is temporary
and pursues political aims. Isn't this tactic part of a long-term
strategy of an armed conflict with Iran? There are no guarantees.
Therefore, Azerbaijan should stick to a well-balanced foreign policy
on the issue of military bases. There is no alternative to this,
and we should not hurry to deploy the bases here.
[Signed] The CGR analytical group.
Zerkalo, Baku
20 Nov 04
The deployment of foreign military bases in Azerbaijan will have a
negative impact on the whole system of regional security, an Azeri
analytical group has said. Commenting in Azeri daily Zerkalo on
recent reports about the possible US military presence in the country,
the analytical group said that such a move would change the regional
balance in Azerbaijan's favour, but this would be temporary and the
country would have to face "legal and illegal" protests from its
neighbours, Russia and Iran. The USA is trying to use Azerbaijan as
a bridgehead for invading Iran since it is impossible to do it from
Iraq and Afghanistan. In this connection, Azerbaijan should conduct
a well-balanced policy taking into account the interests of all the
regional powers and avoid deploying foreign troops on its territory,
the analytical group said in conclusion. The following is an excerpt
from the CGR analytical group's report in Azerbaijani newspaper
Zerkalo on 20 November headlined "Azerbaijan is a bridgehead for a
US invasion of Iran" and subheaded "Or we should not hurry to deploy
American bases here"; subheadings inserted editorially:
Obvious contradiction
The problem of the possible deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan is
already not new and has become a subject of heightened interest from
time to time not only in the Azerbaijani, but also in the Western
press. For example, about a month ago the American news agency United
Press International (UPI) reported that American military bases might
be deployed in the "Armenian-occupied" Azerbaijani districts - Fuzuli,
Cabrayil and Zangilan.
Following these reports, the same Western press abounded with news
about possible US strikes on Iran. Of course, the mutual link between
these two actions does not cause any doubt, while opinions on whether
it is true or not differ. On the one hand, everybody remembers
statements by the deputy commander of the US troops in Europe, Air
Force Gen Charles Wald, who is well-known for his frequent visits to
Azerbaijan, that Washington has no intention of setting up a permanent
base in the South Caucasus. We should remind you that he said this
during his visit to Baku in July this year.
On the other hand, former State Secretary Colin Powell recently made
another interesting statement saying that the USA has no intention
of overthrowing the current regime in Iran. The contradiction between
influential media and statements by US officials is too obvious. The
following issue is also of interest: usually, information about alleged
plans to punish Iran is leaked in the West and then commented on at
the local level. Therefore, we can suppose that a certain process of
influencing public opinion is under way with all the consequences
that ensue. It is exactly this approach that makes it possible to
analyse the situation that has developed around Iran, the Middle East
and the South Caucasus as a whole.
Iran greatest threat to America
To say that the USA has certain plans with regard to Iran means to say
nothing. But these plans should be examined in the context of the new
Middle East doctrine put forward by the Bush administration by the end
of his first year in office and entitled the "Greater Middle East"
project, which has far-reaching consequences. This plan envisages
a complex programme of pacifying and democratizing the Middle East
by creating a system of financial and organizational mechanisms of
influencing the region - the "Greater Middle East" concept. The purpose
of the programme is to minimize all types of threats that currently
stem from the region, create prerequisites for long-term stabilization
on the basis of democratic choice and to observe the minimum set of
"rules of the game" in the domestic and international arena. It is
clear that Washington will not confine itself only to peaceful methods
to achieve these goals. Among other countries of the Middle East, it is
exactly Iran that poses the greatest threat to American interests in
the region. Iran is also the strongest state of the Middle East from
a military point of view, and even Israel, which has nuclear weapons,
is afraid of it. It is no secret that Tehran is trying to spread its
influence to the Muslim countries of the Middle East and, in some
way, is appropriating the role of a leader that unites the disunited
Muslim countries. Although the success of such a mission causes doubt.
Attack on Iran to cause deep crisis in Western economy
However, even such attempts by Tehran cause a sharply negative reaction
from the USA. For this reason, it is no surprise that Iran is turning
into the main object of attacks by Washington. To some extent, the
increasing confrontation between the USA and Iran is furthered by
Iran's aspirations to influence the processes that are taking place
in Iraq, namely to bring pro-Iranian forces to power. Nevertheless,
we can presume that American wrath against Iran will not turn into
hostilities for the time being. First, oil prices are very high in
the world and will skyrocket even higher if the situation in Iran
destabilizes, as a result of which the Western economy will fall into
a deep crisis. Second, European Union countries, which have great
interests in Iran, unlike the USA, especially in the same fuel issue,
have shown a sharply negative reaction to all talk about it.
[Passage omitted: British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said that
a war on Iran will claim hundreds of thousands of lives]
USA to use Azerbaijan as a bridgehead
The war on Iran is not linked only to diplomatic difficulties. It
does not stand up to criticism from a military-tactical point of view
either. Analysts think that, in theory, the USA might use Armenia,
Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan as a bridgehead for the
invasion. Armenia can be automatically taken off the list as it is an
ally of Iran and Russia. As for Syria, US relations with this country
are the subject of a separate article. In principle, nothing will stop
the USA from using Iraq and Afghanistan as a bridgehead. However,
neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are suitable for this purpose since
guerrilla warfare is going on in those countries. The only choice is
Azerbaijan whose territory the USA could see as a possible bridgehead
for an invasion of Iran. But to this end, it is necessary to deploy
the aforesaid bases, which even Russia does not have in Azerbaijan.
In the early 1990s, Azerbaijan managed to get Russian troops withdrawn
from its territory. We remember that as a far-sighted politician the
late [Azerbaijani President] Heydar Aliyev had stated that not only
Russia, but also any other foreign country will not have military
bases in Azerbaijan. Noting that Azerbaijan has sufficient forces of
its own, he even opposed the arrival of US special security forces
to guard the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Not by chance did the
Milli Maclis pass a law forbidding the deployment of foreign troops
on Azerbaijani territory. Azerbaijan's position on this issue is
clear and understandable, although the USA is almost the only great
power that has interests nearly in all four corners of the world and
military cooperation with that country is of special importance to
Azerbaijan. It is also necessary to take into account the geopolitics
of the region. Our country is geographically situated in a region
where the interests of several centres of power, even non-regional
ones, are concentrated.
The East-West, North-South transport corridors, strategic pipelines and
abundant hydrocarbon resources are ideas that are linked to Azerbaijan
first of all. All this necessitates the conduct of a well-balanced
policy, taking into account the position of all the countries that
are interested in the region in order to preserve regional stability,
balance and ensure the country's economic development.
Foreign troops in Azerbaijan to damage regional security
For this reason, any deployment of foreign military bases in
Azerbaijan will have a negative impact on the whole system of regional
security. Yes, such a political move would allow us to change the
regional balance in our favour, but this would be temporary and as a
result, Azerbaijan would have to face legal and illegal protests from
the rest of the centres of power. Of course, it would be extremely
foolish to discard neighbouring Russia and Iran.
Although our northern neighbour is lagging behind the USA in many
parameters, it does not necessarily mean that Moscow is going to
give up so easily its positions in the post-Soviet area. The fact
that Russia is giving open support to candidate Viktor Yanukovych in
the presidential elections in Ukraine, is planning to strengthen the
Russian bases in CIS countries, especially in Central Asia, with new
aircraft and other battle-worthy "hi-tech" units and is tiring its
neighbours out by closing the Russian border demonstrates once again
that Moscow has considerable military-political and economic resources
to influence the situation in the CIS region. An American-Russian
confrontation because of Azerbaijan also looks unrealistic. As Charles
Wald pointed out, Russia should not be worried about any redeployment
of US troops from western Europe. He said that the USA looks on Russia
as a "strategic ally, especially from a military point of view".
For this reason, the deployment of some bases in Azerbaijan seems to
be a hopeless thing. It is not by chance that commenting on the fuss
about the deployment of foreign bases in Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani
Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov stated that our country is not
having consultations with anyone to allow its territory to be used
for attacking the Islamic Republic of Iran. So, information about
such US intentions allows the USA itself to learn in more detail the
international community's reaction to its strategic intentions. But
this is not the end of it. The reports circulating around the world
about a war allegedly being prepared against Iran are an integral
part of America's foreign policy tactics.
This is a sort of information pressure - a policy of verbal deterrence
against Iran in order to make it give up its political ambitions and
weapons of mass destruction. Is this policy effective? At least news
was recently circulated around the world that Iran has agreed to stop
enriching uranium, but as the head of the Iranian Supreme National
Security Council, [Hasan] Rowhani, pointed out, this is temporary
and pursues political aims. Isn't this tactic part of a long-term
strategy of an armed conflict with Iran? There are no guarantees.
Therefore, Azerbaijan should stick to a well-balanced foreign policy
on the issue of military bases. There is no alternative to this,
and we should not hurry to deploy the bases here.
[Signed] The CGR analytical group.