The spillover effects of the war in the Middle East are now knocking at the doors of the South Caucasus

On 28 February, Israel and the United States launched strikes against Iran, to which Iran responded with retaliatory strikes against Israel and US military facilities in neighbouring countries. This has engulfed much of the Middle East in conflict, with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, and Oman reporting Iranian missile strikes. Iran’s key strategic position between West Asia, linking the Gulf, the Levant, Central Asia, and the Indian Ocean, effectively means that the conflict has a global impact on power balances, energy markets, oil prices, nuclear diplomacy, trade, and transit routes. Some of these effects will probably dial down if a ceasefire is achieved in the region; however, most effects will leave a mark on the international community in the years to come.

When it comes to the South Caucasus, the war in Iran has affected both the relatively fragile security environment in the region and the broader geopolitical and economic stability.

The effects of the Middle East war on Azerbaijan:

Azerbaijan, which shares a long border with Iran and has close historical and religious ties with its neighbour, has been directly affected by the conflict. On Thursday (5 March), a drone struck the passenger terminal of Azerbaijan’s Nakhchivan International Airport, while a second fell near a school in the village of Shakarabad in the Babek district during class hours. Four civilians were reportedly injured.

Heated discussions followed, with Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev condemning the attack as an “act of terror” and announcing on Friday (6 March) that staff from Azerbaijan’s embassy in Tehran and its consulate in Tabriz would be withdrawn. Iran responded that it was not behind the attack and that further investigations would be conducted. This has reduced some of the tensions with Azerbaijan, which dispatched humanitarian aid to Tehran on Tuesday (10 March). However, while some of the tensions have eased, relations between Baku and Tehran remain tense.

Könül Khalilova argues in an article for the BBC that “Iran is home to an estimated 20-25 million ethnic Azeris, who make up its largest minority group and are concentrated in the north-west along the Azerbaijan border.” One concern is that if the conflict continues to escalate, pressure will increase along the border as people attempt to flee the war. In addition, the ethnic Azeri minority continues to play an important role in Iran, a subject that has long been sensitive in relations between Tehran and Baku, with Iranian authorities often concerned about the potential implications for the country’s internal stability. Shortly after the drone crash, President Aliyev made a comment that got the Islamic Republic thinking: “The independent Azerbaijani state today is a source of hope for many Azerbaijanis in Iran”. Könül Khalilova argues that such a statement sent a message: “Any attempt to pressure Azerbaijan militarily or diplomatically could result in a response from Baku, including one that affects Iran’s internal stability.” While tensions have subsided with Tehran conducting investigations regarding the attack, Baku will keep a close eye on the situation.

Regarding the economic impacts of the war, Vugar Bayramov, a member of the Milli Majlis, argues that Azerbaijan is likely to be only minimally affected, as Iran accounts for around 1.3% of Azerbaijan’s foreign trade turnover, making it a relatively small trading partner. Azerbaijan also maintains a negative trade balance with Iran, meaning it imports more from Iran than it exports. The war could therefore disrupt some imports from Iran, but the impact on Azerbaijan’s exports is expected to be minimal. Moreover, the effect on imports is also likely to remain limited, as Azerbaijan can diversify its supply from other countries.

The effects of the Middle East war on Armenia:

Armenia also shares a border with Iran and faces a similar risk from debris or misfired drones. While this has not happened, the risk cannot be excluded. According to The Armenian Weekly, Armenia faces immediate strategic challenges arising from the war in the Middle East, including potential disruptions to energy transit routes, border management pressures, economic connectivity, external geopolitical pressures, and possible migration risks.

Ivan Tchakarov, an analyst at GlobalSource, finds that “Armenia conducts about 14.8% of its total trade turnover with Iran, the Gulf countries and Israel combined, making it the most exposed among the three economies [Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan]”. In addition, Armenia heavily relies on transit routes through Iran to reach external markets. In fact, up to 25% of Armenia’s foreign trade passes through Iranian territory. While Iran’s ambassador to Armenia said on Monday (9 March) that economic cooperation continues despite the war, trade analysts believe that prolonged conflict could affect supply chains and imports.

The effects of the Middle East war in Georgia:

Georgia does not share a border with Iran; however, in recent years, Georgia Dream has grown closer to the Islamic Republic, especially after it began distancing itself from the European Union.

Georgia plays an important role in regional transit corridors and energy infrastructure. The Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline runs from Azerbaijan’s Caspian Sea oil fields through Georgia to Turkey’s Mediterranean port of Ceyhan and is one of the most important energy corridors linking the Caspian region to global markets. Israel is a big beneficiary of this pipeline, with a significant share of its crude oil being transported through it.

On Tuesday (10 March), an adviser to the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) hinted at targeting oil pipelines that support states that are considered by the Islamic Republic the “enemy”. Georgia Today reported on Thursday (5 March) that a potential attack on the BTC pipeline “would have serious implications not only for Israel’s energy security but also for regional stability and global oil markets”. For Georgia, the BTC pipeline is an important project, and any attempt to strike the pipeline would have an effect on the economy of the country, but also its relations with Iran, which Tbilisi increasingly regards as a partner as its relations with the West have cooled.

All in all, the three countries in the South Caucasus will inevitably be affected by the spillover effects of the war in the Middle East. Some have already been affected, and some will have to find ingenious ways to mitigate potential economic challenges. However, this may also offer an opportunity for the South Caucasus. The three countries could coordinate arrangements regarding trade and energy to at least decrease economic hardships.

 

Source: This briefing was first published on Caucasus Concise on 12 March 2026

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)