"Fact" daily writes:
The analysis of the actions of the administration of the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev in the context of the regional dynamics of the Transcaucasus allows us to identify a number of stable trends, which, according to a number of experts, contradict the principles of long-term stability and security. Political scientist Aghvan Poghosyan mentions this in an analytical article written for Pasti, which we present in full below. Baku's policy is often characterized as one-sided and situational, aimed at strengthening its own positions, without taking into account the complex geopolitical balances in the region.
Such a strategy, based on periodic demonstrative use of military force and sharp diplomatic statements, creates an atmosphere of constant tension that hinders the formation of stable mechanisms of trust between states. In particular, the lack of consistent efforts towards the institutionalization of dialogue with Armenia after the end of the active phase of the conflict, as well as the regular violations of the ceasefire regime along the contact line are considered as systemic destabilizing factors. As for the specific incident related to Iran's reported shelling of the territory of the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, official Baku's response shows a pattern that raises serious questions among independent analysts. The statement by the Azerbaijani authorities was made immediately and in a very categorical manner, but it was not accompanied by the provision of irrefutable evidence to the international community, such as detailed data from radar surveillance, drone observation systems or independent expert analysis of the alleged incident site. Such a quick and unequivocal declaration of the guilty party without an open cross-border investigation is contrary to standard diplomatic procedures in such cases. There is a strong argument that the episode could have been part of a wider geopolitical structure. Sources in the international security sector point to the possibility of the involvement of foreign forces seeking to reshape the balance in Transcaucasia.
The scenario in which Azerbaijan gets involved in a direct conflict with Iran corresponds to the strategic interests of certain players who are not direct participants in regional processes. The artificial creation or hyperbolization of such an incident could serve as a tool to provoke a split between two neighboring states that historically have a complex but largely functional modus vivendi. Thus, Aliyev's sharp and unsubstantiated reaction to the events around Nakhichevan is interpreted by a part of the expert community not as an independent defensive position, but as an element of a pre-designed plan aimed at involving Azerbaijan in the orbit of confrontation with Tehran, which will ultimately undermine the security of the entire South Caucasus region.
Such actions, if they are indeed a manifestation of external influence, and not the result of independent analysis, question not only the supremacy of Azerbaijan's national interests in the policy of its leadership, but also its ability to act as a responsible and independent subject of international relations. Stability in Transcaucasia requires a higher degree of vigilance, transparency and commitment to multilateral dialogues from all local actors.
Unilateral steps based on unverified or potentially fabricated data and, even more so, steps taken with externally imposed logic do not contribute to the construction of such a future.
