Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1133241797-scaled

How will Iran respond to renewed conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia?

The complicated nature of the geopolitics of the region has made it more difficult for Iran to clearly define its policy towards the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Analysis | Middle East

Conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh has been longstanding. The last time the two states clashed and exchanged fire was a set of skirmishes in 2016, which lasted for four days.

Now, the conflict has heated up again, but in different way. This time, the clashes are taking place outside the disputed district of Nagorno-Karabakh and have spilled over to the territory of Armenia.

The reasons behind this conflict are rooted in history. There had been border and territorial disputes between the two countries when they were both part of the Soviet Union, and at that time Moscow, particularly in Stalin era, tried to maintain its control over them by keeping these differences alive. But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, border disputes have remained an old wound that from time to time reopens.

On July 12, the two countries' Ministries of Defense announced clashes in Tovuz district at the state border. The two sides accused each other of ceasefire violations and starting the skirmishes. The Azerbaijani Defense Ministry announced that at least 11 Azeri soldiers and one civilian had been killed while on the other side, Armenia reported the death of 4 of its soldiers in the clashes.

This new outbreak of tensions is especially challenging for Iran, which borders both countries.

Tehran’s policy towards the countries and their conflict is thus critically important. Both sides expect Iran to side with them, and the complicated regional situation has made it difficult for Iran to commit to either.

Iran's official position has always been to emphasize resolving the issue between the two countries through dialogue and diplomacy. On July 15, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, in two separate telephone calls with the top diplomats of Armenia and Azerbaijan, called on both countries to show restraint and resolve the disputes through dialogue.

Also, in a later phone conversation with the new Azeri Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov on July 17, Zarif expressed Tehran’s readiness to mediate.

Iran is making these efforts at a time when hostility between the two countries has risen to a societal level. On July 16, thousands of angry Azeri citizens poured into the streets in Baku demanding the government to declare a mobilization and called on the army to stage a war against Armenia. The outraged Azerbaijani citizens called on their government to liberate the Nagorno-Karabakh region by invading Armenia. Azerbaijani police had to arrest several protesters to keep the volatile situation under control.

What is Iran's real position on this crisis?

The complicated nature of the geopolitics of the region has made it more difficult for Iran to clearly define its policy towards the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. First of all, “Iran supports a peaceful solution," a senior Iranian diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, told me. "We will by no means accept the interference of powers from beyond the region and international powers in this crisis, and our priority is to resolve the issue peacefully."

The senior diplomat went on to say: "Another issue here is our opposition to the war. Although we support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan in this crisis and we are interested in resolving the issue through dialogue in favor of Azerbaijan, when it comes to war and military conflict, we do not agree at all with this subject and prefer to maintain the status quo."

This is despite the fact that Azerbaijan is one of Israel's main allies in the region. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Azerbaijan as was the third-largest purchaser of Israeli arms in 2017, with purchases of $137 million. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during his official visit to Baku in December 2016, revealed that Azerbaijan had up to that time bought $5 billion worth of Israeli weapons.

This is cause for concern for Iran. Israel, which is at the center of the Islamic Republic of Iran's threat perception, has through Azerbaijan a strong presence on Iran's northwestern borders. This increases Iran's interest in a peaceful solution rather than a military conflict.

On the other hand, despite its close relations with Turkey, Iran does not seem to agree with Pan-Turkic ideas that Ankara supports, or with Turkey's alleged desire to revive the Ottoman Empire in Central Asia.

Although Iran has warm relations with Ankara, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's behavior in regional conflicts such as Syria and Libya in recent years shows that he is not reluctant to intervene against Iranian interests . For this reason, Tehran does not welcome a new war in the region, as sending Turkish troops to Azerbaijan to confront Armenia could pave the way for a formation of a pro-Turkish belt around Tehran’s northern borders.

In addition, a sizable ethnic Azeri population lives in Iran, mainly inhabiting the East and West Azerbaijan provinces, which border Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Armenia. This puts pressure on Iran to side with Azerbaijan in its conflict with Armenia, as some in the Iranian Azeri minority want Iran to provide military support to Azerbaijan.

Ruhollah Hazratpour, a lawmaker from Urmia, the provincial capital of West Azarbaijan in the Iranian parliament, warned Armenia on his Twitter account on July 13 to avoid “foolishness” because, in his words, the countries of the region would not allow the occupation of an Islamic territory by Armenia, which he accused of implementing Israeli and US policies.

Similar comments made by individuals from a Turkish-Azeri background in Iran have been abundant. Thus, the Iranian government has to take into consideration local sensitivities of its own large Turkish-Azeri ethnic group in its policymaking regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

While local Pan-Turk nationalists such as the aforementioned Iranian lawmaker are trying to win Tehran’s support for Baku in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the pretext of supporting a fellow Islamic country, Tehran acts according to its own national interests rather than Islamic or Shia beliefs. Furthermore, while Azerbaijan maintains closer ties with Israel than Armenia does, the relations between Iran and Armenia have been traditionally warm and close. Given all this, Iran is more interested in resolving the issue peacefully than other actors are and would not welcome the eruption of violent conflict between its two neighbors.


Escalation between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh in April 2016. Albert_Khachatryan / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Middle East
Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine
Top image credit: The Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine USS Tennessee (SSBN 734) gold crew returns to its homeport at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia, following a strategic deterrence patrol. The boat is one of five ballistic-missile submarines stationed at the base and is capable of carrying up to 20 submarine-launched ballistic missiles with multiple warheads. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication 2nd Class Bryan Tomforde)

More nukes = more problems

Military Industrial Complex

These have been tough years for advocates of arms control and nuclear disarmament. The world’s two leading nuclear powers — the United States and Russia — have only one treaty left that puts limits on their nuclear weapons stockpiles and deployments, the New START Treaty. That treaty limits deployments of nuclear weapons to 1,550 on each side, and includes verification procedures to hold them to their commitments.

But in the context of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the idea of extending New START when it expires in 2026 has been all but abandoned, leaving the prospect of a brave new world in which the United States and Russia can develop their nuclear weapons programs unconstrained by any enforceable rules.

keep readingShow less
 Netanyahu Ben Gvir
Top image credit: Israel Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Itamar Ben Gvir shake hands as the Israeli government approve Netanyahu's proposal to reappoint Itamar Ben-Gvir as minister of National Security, in the Knesset, Israeli parliament in Jerusaelm, March 19, 2025 REUTERS/Oren Ben Hakoon

Ceasefire collapse expands Israel's endless and boundary-less war

Middle East

The resumption of Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip and collapse of the ceasefire agreement reached in January were predictable and in fact predicted at that time by Responsible Statecraft. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, driven by personal and domestic political motives, never intended to continue implementation of the agreement through to the declared goal of a permanent ceasefire.

Hamas, the other principal party to the agreement, had abided by its terms and consistently favored full implementation, which would have seen the release of all remaining Israeli hostages in addition to a full cessation of hostilities. Israel, possibly in a failed attempt to goad Hamas into doing something that would be an excuse for abandoning the agreement, committed numerous violations even before this week’s renewed assault. These included armed attacks that killed 155 Palestinians, continued occupation of areas from which Israel had promised to withdraw, and a blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza that more than two weeks ago.

keep readingShow less
Iraq war Army soldiers Baghdad
Top photo credit: U.S. Army Soldiers assigned to weapons squad, 1st Platoon, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, pose for a photo before patrolling Rusafa, Baghdad, Iraq, Defense Imagery Management Operations Center/Photo by Staff Sgt. Jason Baile

The ghosts of the Iraq War still haunt me, and our foreign policy

Middle East

On St. Patrick’s Day, March 17, 2003, President Bush issued his final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. Two nights later, my Iraq War started inauspiciously. I was a college student tending bar in New York City. Someone pointed to the television behind me and said: “It’s begun. They’re bombing Baghdad!” In Iraq it was already early morning of March 20.

I arrived home a few hours later to find the half-expected voice message on my answering machine: “You are ordered to report to the armory tomorrow morning no later than 0800, with all your gear.”

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.