Follow us on social

Shutterstock_788405959-scaled

How US hawks’ fixation on Iran endangers Middle East Christians

Neocons are pushing the United States to side with Azerbaijan.

Analysis | Middle East

As fierce fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continues into a second month, neoconservatives in Washington are pushing the United States to side with Azerbaijan. Their rationale – involving Iran and Israel, as so many of Washington’s priorities in the Middle East do – is facile, naïve and dangerous to the region’s minorities.

This group of hawks hopes the fight over Nagorno-Karabakh will galvanize the large Azerbaijani minority in Iran. They are assuming, and spreading disinformation to support this assumption, that Tehran is openly favoring Armenia in the war – a poorly sourced claim that is even disputed by Azerbaijan’s president.

The Hudson Institute’s Mike Doran has championed the idea that support for Azerbaijan and its primary backer, Turkey, will hurt Iran. In this zero-sum approach to the region, Doran, a senior director on George W. Bush’s National Security Council, argues that anything that hurts Iran must help Israel; and by helping Israel, America is helping itself.

Edward Luttwack, another conservative luminary, appears to hope the Iranian Azerbaijanis’ support for their ethnic kin will hasten Tehran’s collapse.

Iran’s “balkanization” – or dismemberment along ethnic lines – is a persistent dream for Washington hawks who see the Azerbaijani minority (perhaps 25 percent of Iran’s population) as a potential catalyst. To incite Azerbaijanis against Tehran, they turn to dubious assertions.

Benda Shaffer tweet

For example, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Brenda Schaffer claimed on October 26 – without naming sources or producing evidence – that Iran’s elite security force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, has been thwarting Azerbaijani forces in their fight with Armenia. Schaffer, who has long supported Azerbaijan in American academic and media circles without disclosing her links to state oil company SOCAR, has lobbied for unconditional American and Israeli support for Baku. She has also advocated for the U.S. to use ethnic Azerbaijanis in Iran as proxies in regime change efforts. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies was instrumental in shaping the Trump administration’s Iran policies. 

But what of Iran’s Christians?

Doran, Luttwack and Schaffer may be excited about the prospects of Iran’s disintegration, but they don’t publicly consider the potential consequences for Iran’s other ethnic and religious groups, such as Christian Armenians and Assyrians.

That silence is not surprising. Any honest analysis would recognize that fueling ethnic Azerbaijani nationalism in Iran could endanger local Armenians. Such an admission would put this group at odds with an administration that portrays itself as a defender of Christians worldwide.

To understand how the rise of Azerbaijani nationalism in Iran could impact the Armenian community there, look a little further north, to the Republic of Azerbaijan. There, a legitimate desire to retake territories occupied by Armenian forces for a quarter century has metastasized into an official policy of anti-Armenian intolerance and prejudice. The State Department has reported that people with Armenian-sounding names have been routinely denied entrance to the country; the government has purposefully erased Armenian heritage, destroying traditional tombstones in Nakhchivan; and in a clear example of hate speech, senior officials in the ruling party declared this year that alongside coronavirus, Azerbaijan also had to fight the “Armenian virus.”

Iran boasts a vibrant Armenian community some 200,000-strong with churches, restaurants, sports clubs and the constitutionally guaranteed two seats in parliament. The Islamic Republic organizes regular remembrance ceremonies for fallen Christian soldiers, or “martyrs,” during the 1980s war with Iraq. Last month a hero from that war, Harouch Hakoupiyan, was buried in a ceremony, led by the Iranian army, in his hometown of Isfahan.

Some of the largest groups of Armenians in Iran live in Azerbaijani-majority cities, such as Tabriz, Urmia and Salmas. Some of the most venerated churches, such as UNESCO-listed Saint Stepanos and Saint Thaddeus, are also in Azerbaijani-majority Iranian provinces and operate openly. Iranian Armenians, like all Iranians, are of course squeezed by both the oppressive regime in Tehran and Trump administration sanctions, but overall their rights as a religious community are safeguarded better than in neighboring countries, certainly the Republic of Azerbaijan.

A rise of Azerbaijani ethnic nationalism in Iran in solidarity with their brethren across the border would likely target this co-existence. While support for the liberation of occupied lands around Nagorno-Karabakh is understandable, stoking a visceral hatred of Armenians – because that is how modern Azerbaijani nationalism expresses itself – would endanger one of the last remaining Christian communities in the Middle East.

U.S. foreign policy in the region since Bush’s 2003 Iraq invasion has decimated Christian communities, many of which will never recover. If Washington really cares for the fate of Christians, it should avoid simplistic takes on rivalries in the Middle East. Realpolitik can backfire in unexpected ways.

This article has been republished with permission from Eurasianet.


Armenian Monastery "Qareh Kelisa" in Iran.
Analysis | Middle East
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less
SPD Germany Ukraine
Top Photo: Lars Klingbeil (l-r, SPD), Federal Minister of Finance, Vice-Chancellor and SPD Federal Chairman, and Bärbel Bas (SPD), Federal Minister of Labor and Social Affairs and SPD Party Chairwoman, bid farewell to the members of the previous Federal Cabinet Olaf Scholz (SPD), former Federal Chancellor, Nancy Faeser, Saskia Esken, SPD Federal Chairwoman, Karl Lauterbach, Svenja Schulze and Hubertus Heil at the SPD Federal Party Conference. At the party conference, the SPD intends to elect a new executive committee and initiate a program process. Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Does Germany’s ruling coalition have a peace problem?

Europe

Surfacing a long-dormant intra-party conflict, the Friedenskreise (peace circles) within the Social Democratic Party of Germany has published a “Manifesto on Securing Peace in Europe” in a stark challenge to the rearmament line taken by the SPD leaders governing in coalition with the conservative CDU-CSU under Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Although the Manifesto clearly does not have broad support in the SPD, the party’s leader, Deputy Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil, won only 64% support from the June 28-29 party conference for his performance so far, a much weaker endorsement than anticipated. The views of the party’s peace camp may be part of the explanation.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

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.