Iran’s vice president has travelled to Yerevan and visited the Blue Mosque. Of course, this could be seen simply as a Muslim visiting a mosque, but…
But that would be a reasonable interpretation if the adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader had not said, in reference to the TRIPP project, “We will break their legs.” Whose legs? Those of other countries that set foot in the region, the United States, for example. Velayati also used the phrase “with or without Russia.” In other words, he is telling Armenia and Azerbaijan: Russia may become weaker, but I am here, and I will not allow you to take any steps in the region without my permission.
Of course, one could immediately argue that such a statement constitutes a blatant violation of the Helsinki Final Act, which upholds the sovereignty of states. However, the very existence of this Act has long been in doubt; indeed, it is increasingly clear that it is no longer functioning in practice. Iran does not treat Azerbaijan and Armenia as independent states in the region. It seeks to restrict their actions and place limits on their sovereignty.
Naturally, this is nothing new in Tehran’s ambitions, but the opportunity is new.
The unsuccessful war launched by the United States and Israel in the region is the main factor that has emboldened Iran to make such claims. The consequences of this war have turned Iran into a threat to all the countries around it. The Gulf states, Türkiye and the Caucasus have all been negatively affected by this war and have come under attack. Yet neither the United States nor Israel succeeded either in their offensive operations or in defending their allies.
There is no doubt that, measured in terms of losses and casualties, Iran has suffered a serious blow. Nevertheless, this war has turned Tehran into an aggressive regional power, and, even if only temporarily, this poses a risk.
Who should have responded to Ali Akbar Velayati’s “We will break their legs” statement? The United States, of course. But no such response came. It was precisely because there was no response that Iran’s vice president travelled all the way to Yerevan and presented the Blue Mosque as an example of Iranian cultural heritage.
This is, of course, a message not only to Armenia but also to Azerbaijan. The Yerevan mosque is an important part of Azerbaijan’s history, and through this move Iran is laying claim to Azerbaijan’s historical heritage. In doing so, it also calls the present into question.
What should be done?
Azerbaijan certainly has resources to counter threats from countries such as Iran and Russia. These include the Azerbaijani army, allies and forces whose interests align with those of Azerbaijan. But the most important resource is Azerbaijani society itself: a politically alert society, firmly committed to statehood and national interests.
Yet the Azerbaijani government has consistently pursued a policy of weakening society.
Whether through pressure on independent media, the dismantling of civil society, pressure on political parties or the imprisonment of politicians, such actions strengthen the hand of those who may threaten Azerbaijan from outside. The experience of the Second Karabakh War provides substantial support for this argument.
During the Second Karabakh War, the unequivocal positions taken by all these actors helped ensure the unity of society.
Given that the challenge now facing Azerbaijan is not Armenia, but Iran, a country far more powerful than Armenia, it is worth considering how to restore society’s strength. Because, regardless of all external support, it is we who live here, and it is we who share the risks.
Seymur Hazi
