The former ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Baku – he completed his term of office in 2007 and switched from diplomatic service to expert-analytical work – Afshar Suleimani gave a one-hour interview to the “flag bearer” of Aliyev propaganda, haqqin.az. Suleimani is an ethnic Azeri-Turk, the interview was conducted exclusively in Azeri dialogue. In Iranian-Azerbaijani relations, there is an “ice age” again since the middle of March. IRI ambassador in Baku Mousavi announced that the meeting between Ebrahim Raisi and Ilham Aliyev would take place on the days of Navruz holiday, but it did not happen.
It is extremely important that the Raisi-Aliyev meeting did not take place on the background of the phone conversation between Ilham Aliyev and Russian President Putin on March 18. That day, Aliyev appeared in Stepanakert, “renamed” the central square and lit the Navruz bonfire and declared that this fire “finally purifies the spirit of separatism”. And although Baku officially announced that it would monitor the activities of its embassy in Tehran in the coming days, this has not happened so far, and Ambassador Mousavi, who announced the Raisi-Aliyev meeting, was recalled from his post.
The former ambassador of Iran in Baku made two remarkable observations. He considers that the attack of Hamas against Israel, the war in the Gaza Strip fully correspond to Russia’s geopolitical interests. Turbulence in the Middle East, the constant threat of a large-scale war are taking away not only additional diplomatic efforts, but also real resources from the United States and the Western Alliance. Suleimani notices that the military successes of the Russian side in Ukraine started parallel to the war in Gaza.
The second observation is extremely important already for us in terms of almost objective importance. Suleimani says that the US and Iran “cooperate and coordinate their steps on the issue of the South Caucasus, although they do not have direct diplomatic relations, but communicate through third countries.” It is difficult to call the Islamic Republic a free country, even with the best wishes, and as it is said about spies, “there is no ex-diplomat.” Suleimani could not have allowed such a drastic formulation if he had not expressed a point of view that was at least not opposed to Iran’s official policy.
Not only expert, but certain political circles in Armenia are generating a narrative that the current government is “betraying not only Russia, but also Iran, the only regional ally, with its pro-Western foreign policy.” The Iranian political scientist, on the contrary, clearly notices that in terms of managing risks in the South Caucasus, Tehran and Washington cooperate and coordinate their steps.
One can, of course, hypothesize that Suleimani is “throwing bait”. But it would be possible if there was no “ice age” in Iranian-Azerbaijani relations. Aliyev’s media set the problem of finding out which position of Baku would be “acceptable” for Tehran in the event of an Iran-Israeli war. And this means that Azerbaijan is trying to understand what steps Iran can take against it if Israel starts a war. Such issues are certainly not revealed at the interview level. But the importance of the information-propaganda component was probably felt by both sides.
Basically, it turns out that the Iranian expert connects the possibility of an “explosion” in the South Caucasus with Russia’s foreign policy programming. In this sense, the Armenian “Iran-name”, which is built on the theory of the Russian-Iranian “axis of strategic cooperation”, does not bear scrutiny. Suleimani asks a pragmatic question. “Look, what opportunity has Russia left for Iran in the South Caucasus?” and in a sharp answer – none. Apparently, he is hinting that Russia left that opportunity to Turkey.
