Tweet
IRANIAN-AZERBAIJANI TENSION
By Yurii RAIKHEL
People are dying in Nagorno-Karabakh
http://www.day.kiev.ua/229873
Thursday, 14 2012
The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton carried out a number
of visits to the countries of the South Caucasus. A wide range of
questions was discussed. But there were only two main ones: relations
with Iran and conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. And that was not
coincidental. Both problems turned out to be tightly interconnected.
It has become a custom to consider Russia to be the main patron of
Armenia in this sensitive and strategically valuable region. That
is true, but Iran is an important player there too. Lately the
confrontation between the Islamic Republic and the West set off the
aggravation between Tehran and Baku. Besides that, the conflict swelled
because of Iran's nuclear program and shootings in Nagorno-Karabakh
that became more frequent. People are dying there, and both sides are
blaming each other for it. We can add the fights over the status of
the Caspian Sea to the overall picture and see a rather deep crisis
that can envelop not only this region, but the neighboring ones too.
The relations between Baku and Tehran have never been warm, but at
least they were rather smooth on the outside until a certain moment.
However, as the first signs of nuclear thunderstorm were noticed,
the relations between the two countries worsened.
Iran's pretext for the accusations were Azerbaijan's close relations
with the US, and what especially irritates the ayatollahs, close
relations with Israel. Perhaps, Iran was exasperated when Azerbaijan
signed a contract for delivery of the newest armaments for the army
with Israeli companies.
On its side, Baku got less and less pleased with close relations
between Iran and Armenia. The latter is literally being in a state of
an almost complete isolation. The borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan
are closed, the relations with Tbilisi are not splendid for many
reasons, though gas and goods from Russia are conveyed as transit
through Georgia. In such conditions, Iran is a window into the outer
world for Armenia. Such necessities as electric energy, oil products,
and other things are supplied through Iran. If not for this window,
Armenia's economy would be in a desperate condition. Practically,
in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Iran is opposing Azerbaijan, though
it claims to be supporting the territorial integrity of the latter.
A purely psychological detail should be added to this. Azerbaijan is
more secular as compared to theocratic and Shiite Iran, while most
of believers there are Shiites as well. In some sense, such worldly
regime is an example for the most of the Iranian opposition. From
ayatollahs' point of view, such state of affairs is unacceptable,
and this pours more oil over the bilateral relations. It causes
the attempts to destabilize the situation in Azerbaijan by sending
terrorist groups, which are lately being discovered more often by
the Azerbaijani secret agencies. An information war is stirred up
in such conditions, protest marches and meetings take place near
the diplomatic missions in a corresponding country, and finally,
the Ambassador of Iran to Azerbaijan is withdrawn for consultations.
Iranian top officials made numerous statements that if the conflict
with the West grows into an armed phase, neighboring countries will
also face the attack. Turkey received this warning before, now a
similar card is being played against Azerbaijan, with a pretext that
Americans and Israeli will be able to use this country as a platform
for their military activity.
Iran is not likely to stir up against Turkey for multiple reasons.
Some of them being the disproportion of the military potential of
the two countries, and of Iranian and Turkish armies. Besides,
Turkey is a NATO member, and in case any conflict takes place,
the mutual defense clause is to be invoked. In this perspective,
some Tehran officials consider Azerbaijan to be a weaker enemy,
a more suitable object for a local conflict.
But in fact, this is a fallacious opinion.
It is so not only because of the increased level of Azerbaijani
military preparedness and the inevitability of Turkey's interference.
Ankara will not leave Baku to the mercy of fate and will provide it
all the military assistance required. It would not be a local conflict,
it would spread over the whole region, including Nagorno-Karabakh.
Armenia would find itself in the worst situation.
Russia would not be able to provide it with adequate aid, since the
borders would be instantly blocked, and forcing their way through
Georgia would draw the international condemnation. Though so far,
Moscow has been supporting Armenia informationally. Russian press tends
to abound in articles about Azerbaijan's provocative role because of
its militarization. It turns out to be an ironic situation.
Moscow arms Yerevan almost for free, but it denies this right to
other countries, even if they do it with their money. This is how
the purchase of arms by Baku is viewed in Moscow.
In fact, Russia does not need a conflict in the Caspian Region.
Firstly, because Armenia would be left alone surrounded by its
neighbors. Secondly, the war with Georgia already pushed Armenia closer
to the West, which weakened Moscow's position east of the Black Sea.
And protectorate over South Ossetia and Abkhazia does not politically
cover the existing expenses. It is natural that Russia's obvious
pro-Armenian and pro-Iranian position does not improve the relations
with Azerbaijan. Actually, they are experiencing a deep cool-down
period.
This results in a constant strengthening of the US position in Russia's
soft underbelly with all possible consequences.
It is strange, but instead of taking a more balanced and neutral
position in the deep confrontation of the South Caucasus, Moscow
immerses itself into anti-Azerbaijan rhetoric and acts against its
own strategic interests.
Any military conflict in the South Caucasus, be it Iranian-Azerbaijani,
or Armenian-Azerbaijani one, will result in Russia's isolation from the
North-South transport corridor and will push it away from the region
rich in oil and gas. Russian generals' worst nightmares are the ones
in which Americans receive access to the Caspian Region and some of
the coastal countries join the missile defense system, which Russia
opposes so furiously. Just remember the strange situation around the
Gabala Radar Station in Azerbaijan, its leasing contract expiring at
the end of this year.
Ukraine is directly interested in the stable status of the South
Caucasus. Because that is where we can get oil and gas from, thus
loosening the energy noose thrown over our country's neck. As opposed
to Moscow, Kyiv is not interested in domination over that region. We
have friendly relations with Azerbaijan, rather smooth ties with
Armenia. Kyiv could help resolve the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh
on the basis of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. After all,
a lean compromise is better than a fat lawsuit.
From: A. Papazian
By Yurii RAIKHEL
People are dying in Nagorno-Karabakh
http://www.day.kiev.ua/229873
Thursday, 14 2012
The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton carried out a number
of visits to the countries of the South Caucasus. A wide range of
questions was discussed. But there were only two main ones: relations
with Iran and conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. And that was not
coincidental. Both problems turned out to be tightly interconnected.
It has become a custom to consider Russia to be the main patron of
Armenia in this sensitive and strategically valuable region. That
is true, but Iran is an important player there too. Lately the
confrontation between the Islamic Republic and the West set off the
aggravation between Tehran and Baku. Besides that, the conflict swelled
because of Iran's nuclear program and shootings in Nagorno-Karabakh
that became more frequent. People are dying there, and both sides are
blaming each other for it. We can add the fights over the status of
the Caspian Sea to the overall picture and see a rather deep crisis
that can envelop not only this region, but the neighboring ones too.
The relations between Baku and Tehran have never been warm, but at
least they were rather smooth on the outside until a certain moment.
However, as the first signs of nuclear thunderstorm were noticed,
the relations between the two countries worsened.
Iran's pretext for the accusations were Azerbaijan's close relations
with the US, and what especially irritates the ayatollahs, close
relations with Israel. Perhaps, Iran was exasperated when Azerbaijan
signed a contract for delivery of the newest armaments for the army
with Israeli companies.
On its side, Baku got less and less pleased with close relations
between Iran and Armenia. The latter is literally being in a state of
an almost complete isolation. The borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan
are closed, the relations with Tbilisi are not splendid for many
reasons, though gas and goods from Russia are conveyed as transit
through Georgia. In such conditions, Iran is a window into the outer
world for Armenia. Such necessities as electric energy, oil products,
and other things are supplied through Iran. If not for this window,
Armenia's economy would be in a desperate condition. Practically,
in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Iran is opposing Azerbaijan, though
it claims to be supporting the territorial integrity of the latter.
A purely psychological detail should be added to this. Azerbaijan is
more secular as compared to theocratic and Shiite Iran, while most
of believers there are Shiites as well. In some sense, such worldly
regime is an example for the most of the Iranian opposition. From
ayatollahs' point of view, such state of affairs is unacceptable,
and this pours more oil over the bilateral relations. It causes
the attempts to destabilize the situation in Azerbaijan by sending
terrorist groups, which are lately being discovered more often by
the Azerbaijani secret agencies. An information war is stirred up
in such conditions, protest marches and meetings take place near
the diplomatic missions in a corresponding country, and finally,
the Ambassador of Iran to Azerbaijan is withdrawn for consultations.
Iranian top officials made numerous statements that if the conflict
with the West grows into an armed phase, neighboring countries will
also face the attack. Turkey received this warning before, now a
similar card is being played against Azerbaijan, with a pretext that
Americans and Israeli will be able to use this country as a platform
for their military activity.
Iran is not likely to stir up against Turkey for multiple reasons.
Some of them being the disproportion of the military potential of
the two countries, and of Iranian and Turkish armies. Besides,
Turkey is a NATO member, and in case any conflict takes place,
the mutual defense clause is to be invoked. In this perspective,
some Tehran officials consider Azerbaijan to be a weaker enemy,
a more suitable object for a local conflict.
But in fact, this is a fallacious opinion.
It is so not only because of the increased level of Azerbaijani
military preparedness and the inevitability of Turkey's interference.
Ankara will not leave Baku to the mercy of fate and will provide it
all the military assistance required. It would not be a local conflict,
it would spread over the whole region, including Nagorno-Karabakh.
Armenia would find itself in the worst situation.
Russia would not be able to provide it with adequate aid, since the
borders would be instantly blocked, and forcing their way through
Georgia would draw the international condemnation. Though so far,
Moscow has been supporting Armenia informationally. Russian press tends
to abound in articles about Azerbaijan's provocative role because of
its militarization. It turns out to be an ironic situation.
Moscow arms Yerevan almost for free, but it denies this right to
other countries, even if they do it with their money. This is how
the purchase of arms by Baku is viewed in Moscow.
In fact, Russia does not need a conflict in the Caspian Region.
Firstly, because Armenia would be left alone surrounded by its
neighbors. Secondly, the war with Georgia already pushed Armenia closer
to the West, which weakened Moscow's position east of the Black Sea.
And protectorate over South Ossetia and Abkhazia does not politically
cover the existing expenses. It is natural that Russia's obvious
pro-Armenian and pro-Iranian position does not improve the relations
with Azerbaijan. Actually, they are experiencing a deep cool-down
period.
This results in a constant strengthening of the US position in Russia's
soft underbelly with all possible consequences.
It is strange, but instead of taking a more balanced and neutral
position in the deep confrontation of the South Caucasus, Moscow
immerses itself into anti-Azerbaijan rhetoric and acts against its
own strategic interests.
Any military conflict in the South Caucasus, be it Iranian-Azerbaijani,
or Armenian-Azerbaijani one, will result in Russia's isolation from the
North-South transport corridor and will push it away from the region
rich in oil and gas. Russian generals' worst nightmares are the ones
in which Americans receive access to the Caspian Region and some of
the coastal countries join the missile defense system, which Russia
opposes so furiously. Just remember the strange situation around the
Gabala Radar Station in Azerbaijan, its leasing contract expiring at
the end of this year.
Ukraine is directly interested in the stable status of the South
Caucasus. Because that is where we can get oil and gas from, thus
loosening the energy noose thrown over our country's neck. As opposed
to Moscow, Kyiv is not interested in domination over that region. We
have friendly relations with Azerbaijan, rather smooth ties with
Armenia. Kyiv could help resolve the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh
on the basis of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. After all,
a lean compromise is better than a fat lawsuit.
From: A. Papazian