Opinion: Iran's "grand strategy" in the South Caucasus goes back centuries

The lifting of sanctions enable Iran to resume its historical quest for influence in the South Caucasus. But with Russia and Turkley well-entrenched in the region, and with increasing EU engagement the task will not be easy for the Iranians argues Emil Avdaliani in this op-ed.

For centuries Iran was a regional power. Powerful Iranian dynasties such as the Achaemenids, and the Sasanians in ancient times, and the Safavids and Kajars in the 17th and 18th centuries. aspired to achieve a major role in the Middle East, the South Caucasus and the southern parts of Central Asia.  The Cold War period was followed by the sanctions imposed by western countries in response to Tehran's nuclear program, Iran was constrained in its efforts to project its economic and political influence in its neighbouring regions.

The sanctions officially started being lifted in early 2016 and, despite its rhetoric, the Trump administration is unlikely to reverse the Iran nuclear deal in the near future. Iran now sees avenues for projecting its economic and political clout in its neighborhood, and in particular the South Caucasus region.

One of Iran's foreign policy imperatives is to increase its gas exports and trade relations with Europe. There are opportunities for this cooperation as the EU is worried about Russian predominance in the European gas market. Iranian gas could be a very good tool to assuage European fears, but to export its gas Iran would need access to the Black Sea ports, such as Batumi and Poti in Georgia.

To this end, Iranian officials often meet their Georgian counterparts to discuss trade corridors. For example, on June 6th the heads of the Georgian, Iranian and Azerbaijani railways discussed launching a new South-West Transport Corridor, where, as they stated, Georgia will play a vital transit role connecting the Persian Gulf and India to Europe.

Tehran has also often expressed its willingness to use the Trans-Anatolian Gas Pipeline and the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline. Moreover, Iran intends to increase its trade with the South Caucasus countries. For example, it stated on several occasions that trade with Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan would grow from approximately $1 billion to more than $2.5 billion.

As a result, Iran has made progress establishing itself on the Black Sea coast. In late 2016 it was agreed that Iran and Georgia construct through a joint venture various oil-reproduction facilities near Georgia's Black Sea town of Supsa, on approximately 1.2 square kilometers of land.

However, despite some successes there are big constraints which Iran will continue facing in the South Caucasus given that Russia, as well as Turkey are already deeply entrenched in the region and well represented both militarily and economically. Russia for instance successfully obstructs any Iranian moves to establish independent/new pipelines or railways to Armenia and Georgia.  A sign of this was seen some years ago when talks started on building a large-scale transit gas pipeline from Iran through Armenian territory to Georgia. Moscow quickly blocked the move through its influence on the Armenian government. The Kremlin even bought the majority of shares in the existing Armenia-Iran transit pipeline to effectively forestall any further initiatives on this front.

Tehran and Yerevan also held talks on the possibility of constructing a $3.7 billion railway through Armenia to Georgia's Black Sea coast. However here too the project stalled because of difficulties in finding finances for the project. In reality though, Russia owns most of Armenia's railway infrastructure, and is therefore in a position to block any Iranian initiative. Another reason why this project did not materialize could be that neighboring Azerbaijan already has the necessary pipeline infrastructure in place, and the new Baku-Tbilisi-Akhalkalaki-Kars railway will strengthen Iran's willingness to use the Azerbaijan route.

Another area of involvement for Iran could be the simmering Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In the early 1990s there were some unsuccessful attempts by the Iranian government to mediate the conflict. Since both Armenia and Azerbaijan border on Iran it is quite natural that Tehran seeks to play a bigger role in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement process. However, Russia which still is a dominant power in the   process, would   oppose any Iranian initiatives which can diminish Moscow's role.

There is also a purely military aspect to the Russo-Iranian competition. Russia continues to be a dominant military power in the region, with active military bases in Armenia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as total control of strategic Caucasus mountain passes. This in turn further limits Iran's regional ambitions.

Despite rivalry Iran and Russia can also cooperate

However, despite the disputes over influence in the South Caucasus and elsewhere, Russia and Iran have shown they can cooperate too. Economics is one sphere where co-operation is possible, for example in the development of the North-South transport corridor, where Moscow and Tehran have joined forces with Baku.

Moscow and Tehran are also willing to co-operate to obstruct western presence in the region. Both also loath Turkish influence in the region, and the growing military cooperation between Ankara, Tbilisi and Baku. A similar concern is the expansion of NATO's role, primarily in Georgia.

Russian thinking on this aligns fully with that of the Iranians, as both fear western encroachment in their areas of influence. Tehran and Moscow are both worried that the EU might eventually engulf all the South Caucasus states. Georgia is already an EU Associate member, and Brussels is expecting to sign enhanced co-operation agreements with Baku and Yerevan later this year. The presence of Europe on Iran's northern border, through trade and EU soft-power tools will as a result be quite significant.

Thus, the lifting of the sanctions against Iran certainly helps the country enjoy more maneuverability in its economic and political interaction in the South Caucasus although it will nevertheless face substantial resistance from Russia and Turkey, whilst all three will face increasing competition from western countries and institutions. 

source: Emil Avdaliani teaches history and international relations at Tbilisi State University and Ilia State University. He contributed this op-ed for commonspace.eu

photo: Iranian President Hasan Rohani at a welcoming ceremony during his visit to Armenia in December 2016, together with the Armenian President Serzh sargsyan (picture courtesy of the press service of the President of Armenia)

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).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

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)