Azerbaijan is ready to become mediator between the US and Iran

Read it in Russian

Izvestia daily has published an article “The American Vector of the Azeri Policy” prepared with the help of the press service of the Azeri President. The article is about the context and goals of the visit of Azeri President Ilham Aliyev to the US and is, in fact, the account of Azerbaijan’s official position. The article says:

“Washington has had many chances to show its respect, to welcome in any way the independent Azeri choice, to support the new president Ilham Aliyev. But the visit did not take place in either 2004 or 2005. Then, the visit might, probably, seem politically and tactically more necessary to Baku than to Washington. But now the situation is different: we are faced with the reality of not only a real war in nearby Iraq but also quickly growing tensions in the Caspian region itself – over Iran. In this light, Azerbaijan is becoming not just important for the US but even more important than its traditional ally Turkey. The situation over Iran is really critical for the Bush administration. And at this very moment Washington invites the Azeri president – not just as an ally but as a possible supporter in this complicated situation…”

Azerbaijan is Iran’s closest neighbor – the countries have centuries-old common history and even partial ethnic relationship (multi-million Azeri community in Iran). So, Azerbaijan is exactly the one who can help Washington out of the present stalemate, who can prompt how to avoid the follies it made in Iraq. And Azerbaijan risks nothing. It has nothing to ask for from the Americans (compare the most quickly growing CIS economy, Azerbaijan, with Georgia or, better, with Armenia, who would never be able to make up their budgets were it not for the American money)… It’s quite traditional for the US diplomacy to use a reliable partner for making a secret retreat in a stalemate situation. Just remember the legendary Henry Kissinger. It was he who secretly prepared the historic meeting between Richard Nixon and Mao Zedong. It was exactly since then (since Kissinger’s secret voyages) that we have used the term “shuttle diplomacy.” Just like today with Iran, it was impossible then to imagine that the enemies like the US and China might ever sit down at the negotiating table. Why not to repeat this success in Iran through President Aliyev? The Aliyev-Bush meeting in Washington might be an opportunity to find such a solution."

Meanwhile, Azerbaijan is quite critical of the quality of the US’ alliance with Ukraine and Georgia: “The role of potential negotiator between the US and Iran is sharply raising the West’s interest in Azerbaijan. Until now the most attractive objects for the US diplomacy have been Ukraine and Georgia, where weak presidents have paved the way for regimes loyal to the US.”

The article gives special attention to the Karabakh problem: “Now having on hand the Iraqi catastrophe, the growing Iranian crisis, HAMAS in Palestine and the consequent complications in the whole Muslim world, Washington will not only try to insure Aliyev’s authority against any blows but will also search for news forms and spheres of regional geo-political cooperation with Azerbaijan. Still we can hardly expect any quick progress in the Karabakh peace process: the Armenian lobby in America is too strong to be overcome quickly even if the US actually wants to get closer with Azerbaijan.

But Armenia should not rejoice at this. In strategic terms, the longer it persists in occupying other’s territories the more it will lose. As an active partner of big world powers, Azerbaijan is in much better position. And this position will only grow with time. In the present-day world, the stability of a state depends not so much on its territory as on its balanced foreign policy – when it does not heel to any side but frees resources for internal development. Despite losses, Azerbaijan has got much, while Armenia has failed to capitalize on its territorial seizures.”