Spokeswoman Warns Against Oversimplifying Complex Issues; “Zangezur” Has Security Implications
webangah News Agency, International Desk: Zangzur is a historic region in southern Armenia. According to the Golestan Treaty during the Qajar era, this area was ceded from Iran to Russia and later became part of Armenia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This region constitutes Iran’s most important transit route to Europe.
The Zangzur corridor entered a new phase following the recent meeting between Nikol Pashinyan and Ilham Aliyev at the White House, mediated by Donald Trump.The two sides signed a ”peace declaration” along with commercial and security agreements. The initiative aims to connect Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan through what has been called Trump’s Roadmap for Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). According to some reports, armenian and Azerbaijani leaders have leased this corridor to the United States for 100 years.
Iran has repeatedly emphasized that any infringement on its Iran-Armenia border or geopolitical changes in the South Caucasus constitute red lines. It has also warned about transit and security consequences posed by this plan. Nonetheless, recent statements from Iranian government officials suggest that establishing such a corridor near Iran’s northern borders may not be highly threatening and “the issue should not be exaggerated.”
In this context, webangah News Agency conducted an interview with Ehsan moheddian, senior Caucasus analyst, examining implications of the Zangzur corridor on Iran’s national interests and clarifying government remarks. The full interview follows:
the government spokesperson recently stated that the Zangzur passage does not relate to losing Iranian borders but is only “a small part of the map.” How accurate are these claims? Is there really no threat from this corridor against Iranian interests or borders?
Fatemeh Mohajerani’s comments claiming that Zangzur is unrelated to losing Iran’s borders or territorial integrity do not align with reality. When powerful actors intend aggressive moves affecting another country’s territorial integrity or geopolitical status elsewhere, they never loudly announce them-firstly because global public opinion rejects such plans; secondly because they lack legal justification. Expansionist goals are typically pursued covertly through subtle means.
The United States seeks proximity via Zangzur but will never openly admit expansionist ambitions. It uses various methods to legitimize actions while advancing its objectives quietly. The Zangzur corridor constitutes one piece in a larger puzzle whose other parts have already been completed-only this segment remains undone.
Along northwest borders spanning 40-130 kilometers adjacent to Karabakh under Armenian control previously, we did not even deploy soldiers for security maintenance while Armenians were present there – especially before they deceived us under claims it was merely local conflict which later fell into Azerbaijani hands-and subsequently forces affiliated with Takfiri groups (jihadists), israel’s regime*,* and also NATO appeared in these areas.
The takfiri militants were arrested; Israelis filmed at border citing economic activities rather of admitting imminent attacks which revealed joint drone manufacturing facilities alongside azerbaijan plus intelligence-security operations thereon weekly cargo flights originate from occupied territories toward Azerbaijan – signaling completion stages of infrastructure including railways tunnels roads planned within this strategic axis expected fully operational by spring next year.
Which other forces or countries are involved in establishing this passage?
The understanding concerning Zangzur lacks binding legal force but still represents unfavorable news for us: Israel,* britain,* Turkey actively operate within Azerbaijan territory.* Meanwhile,the U.S., under economic pretenses creating consortia with Armenia aims gradual foothold gains unlikely positive implications: potential unknown installations might arise involving military units or private military-security companies-which tho undeclared could destabilize border safety threatening national security consequences.*
Simplistically dismissing threats overlooks hazardous variables affecting complex national security matters vested across intertwined actors making proper assessment imperative rather than naive oversimplification.We must avoid signaling complacency regarding American maneuvers without recognizing actual threat dimensions hidden beneath political rhetoric aimed easing external adversaries’ concerns over our vigilance level around those developments .
Your analysis on the 17-point agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan? Does it mention cutting Iranian borders?
The 17-point agreement makes no explicit reference dismembering Iranian boundaries.It contains weaknesses creating ambiguities potentially problematic.Boundary determinations remain deferred pending future negotiations.Adherents agreed referencing Soviet-era maps recognised internationally underscoring legitimacy yet varying versions exist accepted either respectively by Yerevan versus Baku.Ilhami Aliyev pursuing Syunik occupation probably would reject these maps outright posing continuous contestation.Similarly disputes involve Kazakhstan-Tajikistan demarcations illustrating regional boundary complications widely experienced historically as well.
This treaty forbids interference internally (Article 4), yet Aliyev declared peace unattainable unless armenian constitutional reforms occur which constitutes domestic intrusion.By Article7 third-party military deployments banned near both nations’ borders given Armenia relative weakness compared with Ankara-supported Baku,it weakens Yerevan’s defensive capacity empowering militarily superior Eritrean side risk imbalance escalation.Another clause mandates withdrawing international court filings favoring Armenian prosecutorial strategy.In parallel Trump lifted weapons export restrictions imposed during 1990s facilitating unlimited arms sales benefiting Azeri capabilities omitted explicitly thus bottom line increases regional risksfor-even-Iran downstream exposed-to-life-threatening ramifications.Azerbaijan-Israel cooperation amplifies use attempts offensively directed towards Tehran likewise intensifying stakes sharply heightened amid growing hostility backdrop underscored earlier remarks dismissing paternal warnings careless mistakes endanger sovereign defence margins raising alarming prospects undermining Tehran’s stability prioritizing honesty crucial moving forward..
Simplifying complex issues coupled denial thereof avoiding facing facts like Mohajerani & others demonstrate proves counterproductive when confronting multi-layered realities requiring candid acknowledgment governmental aspirations addressing current multifaceted challenges honestly transparently ongoing.
Today,the Caucasus serves as playground hosting multiple state players vying influence shortly ago-A Jewish-American intelligence operative author advocating partition strategies indeed advised weeks ago Armenia perceives post-Syria weakening persist urging western alignment opening corridors permitting U.S access throughout Caspain Basin region.
