Zangezur: A Weakness in Iran’s Foreign Policy
Zangezur: A Weakness in Iran’s Foreign Policy. It seems that the heated discussion about Zangezur within Iranian society is largely due to two issues. First and foremost, the ambiguity of such a plan and how it will be implemented must be addressed.
In other words, it is still unclear what exactly is supposed to happen in this plan. So far, it is merely that Azerbaijan intends to create a corridor to access part of its territory located within Armenia’s borders, which passes through Armenian soil adjacent to Iran’s border. This does not currently seem to imply any changes to Iran’s borders with Armenia.
The second issue is the negative perception prevalent in a significant part of Iranian society towards Russia’s policies. In recent years, this sentiment has grown stronger due to the deepening distrust between the government and the people. The author often criticizes Iran’s policies towards Russia and believes that Russia often has a condescending view of Iran. Russia’s policy towards Iran is generally seen as preventing the improvement of Iran’s relations with the United States and leaning towards the West. Nonetheless, it should be noted that escalating tensions between Iran and Russia, for reasons that require a more detailed discussion, could also pose challenges to Iran’s national interests. Therefore, what is undeniable is that Iran’s policy in this matter should be free from emotions, especially ethnic sentiments.
Another issue worth discussing is the impact that the creation of the Zangezur corridor could have on Iran’s position in terms of communication and access to Europe. Opponents of such a plan claim that its implementation would block Iran’s access to Europe and the North Caucasus through Armenia. To address this claim more accurately, one must assess how important Iran’s communication route through Armenia is, especially in comparison to the Caspian Sea and Turkey routes.
It seems that the significance of Iran’s communication route to Europe, Russia, and the North Caucasus through the Caspian Sea or Turkey is greater than through Armenia. Additionally, it should be determined whether the mentioned corridor will cut off Iran’s route to Armenia or not. This is an important issue that opponents of this plan within Iran seem to have assumed as a given. Regarding Iran’s communication routes, the reality is that routes like the Middle Corridor, which connects China through Central Asia and Azerbaijan to Turkey and Europe, or the East-West Corridor that connects China through Dubai, Riyadh, and Haifa to Europe, as well as Turkey’s development road project, which, if implemented, will connect the port of Faw in Iraq and the ports of Qatar and the UAE to Turkey and Europe, will play a much greater role in bypassing Iran and creating logistical isolation for Iran.
As for why Iran is usually not considered in such plans, various reasons can be cited, from the lack of suitable infrastructure to sanctions. However, if we speak more broadly and comprehensively, it must be said that due to the decision-makers in Iran not paying attention to multi-faceted policies, Iran’s toolbox in dealing with others is practically empty, and for this reason, Iran usually cannot play a significant role in such programs.
This issue is entirely visible in the matter of the Zangezur corridor as well, and what is essential is ensuring that Iran’s communication route with Armenia is not blocked. Although this requires having leverage of persuasion and threat simultaneously, as mentioned, currently, due to its linear relationships with others, Iran does not possess such leverage.
The source of such problems and challenges for Iran should be considered as Iran’s inability to simultaneously shape cooperative and competitive relationships with other countries, which results in reducing Iran’s maneuverability and play in regional equations. In fact, by adopting an approach that can be referred to as a hedging approach, while expanding cooperation with other countries, appropriate competitive levers and cards in relations with them should also be held to have the appropriate influence to maximize the country’s interests.
