Alwaght News has arranged an interview with Hassan Hanizadeh, an expert of international affairs, for elaboration on reactions to the embassy attack.
Q: Despite the fact that a personal motivation was behind the attack, Baku officials took a strong stance and talked about cutting off diplomatic relations with Tehran without inspecting the details of the incident and somehow pointed the finger of blame on the security forces. What is driving this politically-motivated approach of Baku officials and why are they taking stances without any documents?
Hanizadeh: Although the recent attack by an armed person on the embassy of Azerbaijan in Tehran was a personal act and the armed person has been arrested and is being interrogated, the hasty reaction of the Azerbaijani authorities shows that this country is seizing the opportunity to escalate tensions with Iran and finally sever relationship with it. The phone conversations between the President Ibrahim Raisi of Iran and the Foreign Minister Hussein Amir-Abdollahian with their Azerbaijani counterparts indicate the reasonable and logical reaction and approach of the Islamic Republic, but the Azerbaijani, Turkish, and international media utilized the incident to wreak the relations between the two neighbors.
It seems that this incident is similar to that of Al-Mustansiriya University in Iraq in the early 1980s, during which an armed man threw a bomb at the university, killing several Iraqi students and injuring Tariq Aziz, a member of the command council and then deputy prime minister. The Iraqi authorities at the time claimed that the attacker was Iranian who was killed by Tariq Aziz’s bodyguards. At the same time, Saddam unilaterally severed his relations with Iran and swore revenge for the blood of the victims.
Now, with the recent incident at the embassy, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev is playing the same game Saddam played in early 1980s. While Tehran has suggested joint security committee to investigate and uncover the circumstances of this incident, Baku government apparently does not want to cooperate with Iran. It seems that such policies, which have affected the relations between Iran and Azerbaijan for a long time, are moving towards an escalation and may lead to the severing of bilateral relations.
Q: Regarding that Iran and Azerbaijan have been on loggerheads in recent months over geopolitical changes in the disputed Karabakh region, how this attack would impact their relationship?
Hanizadeh: Aliyev’s positions towards Iran over the past decade have been driven by foreign pressures. The opening of Azerbaijan embassy in Tel Aviv, for example, shows that the Azerbaijani president intends to use the Israeli military capacity and the Turkish military support to take on Iran. Over the past decade, Baku has worked, via introducing geopolitical changes to shared Iran, Azerbaijan, and Armenia borders, to cut off Iran connection to the Central Asian states and Eurasia.
Ilham Aliyev actively is seeking to get closer to Israeli regime, because during the recent conflicts between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the logistic role of Tel Aviv in this conflict was obvious. Unfortunately, Azerbaijan's leader, regardless of the social structure of his country and the fact that more than 70 percent of the country’s population is Shiite Muslim, intends to reduce Iran’s influence in the Central Asia.
Q: How do you assess the interventionist stances of foreign sides on the embassy incident?
Hanizadeh: Certainly, foreign parties such as the United States, the Israeli regime, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia play role in inciting Aliyev to confront Iran and change the geographical borders and also reduce Iran’s spiritual influence in the region, and this is a strategic mistake that the president of Azerbaijan is making. The Islamic Republic repeatedly has warned about the attempt of the Baku government to change the land borders. But the continuation of the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the strategic region of Karabakh showed that Baku is still pursuing its expansionist policy.
Baku plans to gain control of Nakhchivan Corridor to Azerbaijan by completely dominating the area known as the Zangezor and alter the 38-kilometer border between Iran and Armenia. If Baku gains complete control over the Zangezor Corridor, Iran’s land route to Central Asian countries will be cut off, and this can create transit problems for Iran.
Q: Turkey’s strong-toned stance on the incident is noteworthy as Ankara accused Iran and offered all-out support to Azerbaijan. Why is Turkey fueling tensions between Iran and Baku?
Hanizadeh: Although Iran made its utmost efforts to prevent abuse of the armed attack on the embassy by the enemies, unfortunately, Baku intends to abuse the incident to put strains on Iran and reduce diplomatic relations with Tehran. The aim of Azerbaijan is to forge a border conflict with Iran with the help of the US, Israeli regime, and Saudi Arabia to close the borders and block Iranian goods transit to Central Asia and Eurasia, and then dominate the Caspian Sea resources. Baku is seriously seeking to exaggerate the embassy incident to escalate the tensions in the region. Driven by its neo-Ottoman agenda, Turkey is standing by Azerbaijan and is seeking to escalate the tensions instead of easing them. Therefore, the attack on the embassy was perhaps a pre-planned scenario to strain bilateral ties with Iran.
Q: The American and Israeli positions on the incident was largely biased and interventionist, with both of them throwing their backing behind Azerbaijan. How do these sides benefit from damage to Iran-Azerbaijan ties?
Hanizadeh: The core aim of scenario designed by anti-Iranian sides that include the US, Israeli regime, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia has always been based on destabilizing the Iranian borders to prevent Iranian relations with its neighbors from resting in a stable and reliable point. The recent incidents in Iraq’s Basra, arranging Persian Gulf Arab soccer tournaments with a fake name, and use of the fake name by some Iraqi officials all are part of this scenario. Recent Iranian developments, heavy propaganda by Western, Arab, and Turkish media against Tehran, heavy EU sanctions on Iran, and labeling the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization by the European Parliament are also part of this scenario. These countries benefit from confrontation of Iran and Azerbaijan because they would directly provide military and diplomatic support to Baku.
Q: How much does the type of Iranian reaction to the incident help neutralize the anti-Iranian media atmosphere?
Hanizadeh: The Islamic Republic should immediately
form a joint committee with Azerbaijan, and through open trial of the
attacker and quick and precise information updates neutralize the secret
plots of the enemies for stirring a conflict between Iran and
Azerbaijan and giving Baku an excuse for anti-Iranian moves.
/129