Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Tehran has embarked on a “good neighbor” campaign: Dr Abbas Maleki

Tehran has embarked on a “good neighbor” campaign: Dr Abbas Maleki

18 June 2011

In this exclusive interview with commonspace.eu Dr Abbas Maleki, Director of the Institute for Caspian Studies in Tehran and Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran and visiting scholar at Harvard University discusses the role of Iran in the Caucasus

 

 

 



Dr Maleki, How does Iran view the current situation in the Caucasus region?

The collapse of former Soviet Union in 1991 was the most important event in Iran's foreign policy from 1828. In 1828, Iran signed the Treaty of Turkmenchai with Tsarist Russia and lost most of the Caucasian region especially all of South Caucasus' terrotories. The seismic effects of Soviet disintegration had both opportunities and threats for Iran. By perceiving itself  as an Asian actor, instead of  only a Middle Eastern player  was    an opportunity  for  Iran  to create a new space for more cooperation with newly independent states in Caucasia and Central Asia.

A perpetual turbulent regional environment  to the northern part of Iran, specifically in North-West is one of major threats for Iran.

Iran's foreign policy of the past decade demonstrates Iran's pragmatism in the Caucasus.  It is not dictated by religious ideology but rather by Iran's national interests, both economic and political, and national security concerns. Iran's behavior in the Caucasus as a unitary actor in this regional subsystem of the international system is best viewed through a Neorealist paradigm, because of its strong explanation of Iran's behavior in the region, such as its open pursuit of national interests and protection of its national sovereignty.


In your opinion what contribution can Iran make to the Karabakh conflict settlement process?

Since early and mid-1990s, Iran has been actively involved in crisis management of both inter-state as well as intra-state conflicts beyond its borders.

On the on-going Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Iranian diplomats  in the past brokered several short term cease-fire agreements  

While tilting toward Armenia, Iran has been wary of any undue defeat of Azerbaijan; Tehran's warning and the dispatch of troops to the borders between Iran and Azerbaijan played a role in Zangalan, Fizoli, and Gebrail after the Armenians had occupied Nagorno-Karabakh.

Iran's security interest in these negotiations is clear; Armenia's border with Iran has more than doubled as a result of its military conquests of Azerbaijan's territories and, in light of Tehran's disputes with Azerbaijan over the division of Caspian Sea and the related concern over the Azerbaijan-Turkey-Israel nexus in the Caspian region, Iran's desire for a return to the status quo ante in the Caucasus is less than clear.

Iran also looks to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as a court for Russian policy examination after cold war . For Iran, it is not assured that Russia  wants to solve NK crisis. Russia monitors former Soviet borders with NATO now along Armenian-Turkish lines.

Tehran has embarked on a "good neighbor" campaign designed to highlight its role as a potential catalyst for peace and prosperity in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Plans for a $120 million gas pipeline to Armenia, a longtime Iranian ally, have spearheaded this venture, but beneath the show of goodwill between Yerevan and Tehran, serious stumbling blocks remain.


Should the international community be talking to Iran more on the Karabakh conflict and the conflict settlement process?

Following the negotiations convened in Florida under the sponsorship of the "Minsk Group" of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in April 2001, the French head of Minsk Group visited Tehran and invited Iran to take part in the negotiations because "the role of Iran in preserving security and stability in the Caucasus region is clear." Also, according to Carey Cavanaugh, the U.S. mediator in the Karabakh negotiations at the time, Iran was regularly briefed on the peace process "to make clear to the Iranians that nothing in this peace process would infringe on their interests or be aimed against them."


Are Iranian think tanks ready for more engagement with their counterparts in the Caucasus, Russia and the west on issues related to the future development of the Caucasus region?

Yes. There is  room for interactions  between the  Iranian elite and others in the region and outside. Iranian think tanks can interact with the institutes of political studies in Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia for discussions on mutual interests of Iran and Caucasian states.Iranian research centers are also eager to exchange their views with Russian, Turkish, US, European and Chinese scholars to find solutions for regional crises in Caucasia.


(c) commonspace.eu

 

 

Latest

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

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
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).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

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

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

7 September 2026
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)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

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

21 September 2026
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)
Dennis Sammut