The behind the curtains of the spark, which may be the second Azerbaijan-Armenia war is a matter of curiosity. As a matter of fact, foreign actors are trying to create an opposite effect. The crisis that broke out on the timing of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) leaders summit, is considered one of the summit’s weaknesses. Very much like the Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan conflict that flared up simultaneously. Some suspected arson, and they were right.
Heightened conflicts between Azerbaijan and Armenia in particular are related to the fear caused generally by the SCO or the purge of the U.S. from the region. Hence, the plan to drown the SCO or similar organizations’ – BRICS, Turkic States Organization, Asia Again, Eurasian Economic Union, Caspian basin deals, et cetera – potential while they are still small is in execution.
U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Yerevan is an extension of this policy, but it is also proof – verifying the metaphor that the perpetrator always returns to the incident scene – of who is behind the numerous existing disputes in Eurasia.
Part of the deals made in the critical and massive region are signed to stop the spread of concerns triggered by new world order conditions.
For example, a recent one was related to developing the “International North-South Transport Corridor,” a deal signed by Russia, Azerbaijan, and Iran.
Objectives have been set to carry 30 million tons of transit and two-way freight transport between the three countries’ lands until 2030.
In fact, the corridor exists for more than two decades. It was built between Russia, Iran, and India. Then another 10 countries – including Türkiye and Azerbaijan – joined. This improved the transport time and routes of the loads transported from India to Russia, as well as those to North and West Europe. There is no doubt that the map drawn by the partners produces a geopolicy as well.
The fact that it is being renewed now is additionally aimed at facilitating the process of overcoming any disturbance that may be caused by the outcomes of a war between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
It is such a challenging region, and bears such severe susceptibilities that Eurasia is open to outside influence to the same extent.
For example, Iran is afraid that the new developments, the Zangezur corridor may jeopardize its border with Armenia. It is concerned it may end its trade with Europe and Eurasia, and that Ankara and Baku may gain dominance.
It is a difficult dilemma, but can be overcome. Additionally, Tehran is afraid that such a situation, which may create pressure over its country, has the potential to encourage separatist activity in Iran. However, this is a baseless concern. While such activities are limited in Iran, neither Türkiye nor Azerbaijan have the desire to irritate these sensitivities. In fact, even though it comes to mind in tensions with Iran time and again, both countries object to such suggestions.
Some provocation/conspiracy elements are claiming that this “threat” may draw the U.S. and NATO to the region through Türkiye, and then make them spread from there to Northern Caucasus, and finally to Central Asia.
One other matter is Azerbaijan-Israel relations, and Israel’s concrete presence in the Azerbaijan-Armenia war. They may have added the currently normalizing Ankara-Tel Aviv relations to their concerns as well.
Surely the U.S., France, or Israel may come up with cunning ideas along the way. But will the region’s new geopolitics and the effects of global change allow the West’s return? Russia and Türkiye’s stances say the opposite. Nevertheless, the “national security” concept, whether realistic or not, works based on the principle of eliminating all voids/risks, and this sometimes makes Tehran’s stubbornness unbearable.
It is not about patience. Iran’s policies are presenting “different” manifestations in nearby regions, in Iraq, in Syria, in anti-terrorism efforts, and finally in Armenia!
The Turkic States Organization, former Soviet countries’ search for security, the SCO must have a mutual vector. Ankara and Moscow are not responsible for improving this “organization” alone – they also have a duty to eliminate fears. Borders of countries such as China and India, which have global disputes, should feature more and intense diplomacy.
Criticisms targeting the SCO summit even in the discussions in Türkiye indicate the difficulty of the matter. Especially seeing the approaches comparing the organization with NATO and/or the EU, strengthen the sense that these comparisons are in favor of the West, signaling the dimension of the obstacles.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is currently in the U.S. to speak at the UN, said in New York, “It is very meaningful that the EU is keeping Türkiye, which has a strong position, on the side via distraction tactics. We cannot help but seek other options.”
The statement, “seek other options” naturally draws attention. However, the real point is the “Türkiye has a strong position” emphasis!
That position is the reality that the East is on the Western border, and the West is on the Eastern border, and it is not only the key but also the lock of the new order. They are both in Türkiye’s hand. Ankara is saying, “This is where you need to look.”