Tweet
ARMENIA IS THE BRIDGE LINKING MOSCOW AND TEHRAN
RIA Novosti
17:33 | 24/ 10/ 2007
MOSCOW. (Levon Melik-Shakhnazaryan for RIA Novosti) - Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Armenia will add nothing new to the
geopolitical alignment in the region.
It will merely restate the obvious. The strategic partnership between
Armenia and Iran is an established fact, and this visit is unlikely
to be seen as anything of a landmark.
Nor will it affect relations between Armenia and the United
States. Armenia is effectively under a blockade, and America knows
this. One of the indirect agents of the blockade is Georgia - America's
closest ally in the region.
More direct participants are other U.S. partners - Azerbaijan and
Turkey.
In this context, friendly relations between Iran and Armenia are
only natural. Whether one likes it or not, Armenia will be friendly
with neighbors with which circumstances, history and common cultural
background force it to be friends.
Until recently the U.S. has displayed some understanding of this fact.
True, Anthony Godfrey, the U.S. Charge d'Affaires in Armenia, has
occasionally expressed dissatisfaction with expanding Armenian-Iranian
relations and growing economic ties between Armenia and Iran, although
the U.S. is well aware of Armenia's plight, and it would be most
unethical to demand that it go into self-imposed isolation.
Armenia therefore looks for understanding not only from America,
but also from any other country that has sour relations with Iran.
In this sense, an aggravation of American-Iranian relations and,
as a result, a possible toughening of the U.S. position would be
most unwelcome.
It is to be hoped that there will be no further deterioration of
relations between Tehran and Washington, and even if there is,
the U.S. has no right and is unlikely to demand anything "extra"
from Armenia in its relationship with Iran.
It would be a different thing if hostilities were to break out -
Armenia's border with Iran would automatically be sealed. That could
lead to serious consequences for the Armenian economy.
As regards Baku's likely response to the visit, Azerbaijan is in the
habit of reacting negatively to any progress in Armenia's relations
with any country, let alone Iran.
Azerbaijan has been an active participant in many regional projects
with a manifest anti-Iranian and anti-Russian bias. They include
communications projects, oil pipelines, gas pipelines, and Caspian
oil production.
In other words even today Azerbaijan continues to pursue Elchibey's
policies of tearing up all possible friendly bonds with a country
that has a multi-millennium civilization and culture.
Azerbaijan is seeking to integrate into Europe via the Turkic
world. Such a policy cannot appeal to Iran and runs contrary to Iran's
political and geopolitical ambitions.
Therefore, the envy with which Baku eyes Armenia's friendly and allied
relations with Iran, is both understandable and incomprehensible.
It is incomprehensible because Azerbaijan itself has done a great
deal to antagonize Iran.
In turn, Armenia's relations with Iran are a fine example of the fact
that Christianity and Islam can co-exist peacefully, and that the
religious factor in inter-ethnic and inter-state relations needn't
play a decisive role.
In any case, the Iranian side will continue to stick to its long
considered position on the Karabakh issue. Iran, like China, is happy
to wait, and as far as possible safeguard its borders against potential
inter-ethnic or inter-state clashes.
This centuries-tested policy is unlikely to be subject to change for
short-term considerations.
Iran has always had ethnic, cultural and purely strategic interests
in the Southern Caucasus. When the Turkic peoples destroyed Caucasian
Albania, Armenia was Iran's only remaining ally in the region. An
absolute loss of the Southern Caucasus would be a tragedy both for
Iran and for Russia.
Equally, the preservation of the Southern Caucasus as a friendly
region is very important for both Tehran and Moscow.
Both countries have historical interests and traditional contacts with
the peoples of the region. But today only Armenia and Nagorny Karabakh
continue the tradition of Caucasian friendship with Iran and Russia.
And while Iran acts as the corridor giving Armenia "access to the wider
world", Armenia serves as the bridge linking Tehran and Moscow. This
is a worthy role, and Armenia plays it without fault.
A Moscow-Yerevan-Tehran axis appears to be crystallizing.
It looks as though Iran projects Russia's geopolitical ambitions in
this region and vice versa.
Both Iran and Russia are being ostracized from European politics,
and in these conditions they have no other option but to seek closer
contact with each other and align a geopolitical, energy and economic
axis capable of helping them to withstand pressure from Europe.
Although the East-West division is nowadays somewhat artificial,
classical Oriental countries carry on the ancient traditions of
wise and considered inter-state policy. India, China and Iran,
for that matter, are all countries with which alliance could only
benefit Russia.
Levon Melik-Shakhnazaryan is a politologist.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not
necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
RIA Novosti
17:33 | 24/ 10/ 2007
MOSCOW. (Levon Melik-Shakhnazaryan for RIA Novosti) - Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Armenia will add nothing new to the
geopolitical alignment in the region.
It will merely restate the obvious. The strategic partnership between
Armenia and Iran is an established fact, and this visit is unlikely
to be seen as anything of a landmark.
Nor will it affect relations between Armenia and the United
States. Armenia is effectively under a blockade, and America knows
this. One of the indirect agents of the blockade is Georgia - America's
closest ally in the region.
More direct participants are other U.S. partners - Azerbaijan and
Turkey.
In this context, friendly relations between Iran and Armenia are
only natural. Whether one likes it or not, Armenia will be friendly
with neighbors with which circumstances, history and common cultural
background force it to be friends.
Until recently the U.S. has displayed some understanding of this fact.
True, Anthony Godfrey, the U.S. Charge d'Affaires in Armenia, has
occasionally expressed dissatisfaction with expanding Armenian-Iranian
relations and growing economic ties between Armenia and Iran, although
the U.S. is well aware of Armenia's plight, and it would be most
unethical to demand that it go into self-imposed isolation.
Armenia therefore looks for understanding not only from America,
but also from any other country that has sour relations with Iran.
In this sense, an aggravation of American-Iranian relations and,
as a result, a possible toughening of the U.S. position would be
most unwelcome.
It is to be hoped that there will be no further deterioration of
relations between Tehran and Washington, and even if there is,
the U.S. has no right and is unlikely to demand anything "extra"
from Armenia in its relationship with Iran.
It would be a different thing if hostilities were to break out -
Armenia's border with Iran would automatically be sealed. That could
lead to serious consequences for the Armenian economy.
As regards Baku's likely response to the visit, Azerbaijan is in the
habit of reacting negatively to any progress in Armenia's relations
with any country, let alone Iran.
Azerbaijan has been an active participant in many regional projects
with a manifest anti-Iranian and anti-Russian bias. They include
communications projects, oil pipelines, gas pipelines, and Caspian
oil production.
In other words even today Azerbaijan continues to pursue Elchibey's
policies of tearing up all possible friendly bonds with a country
that has a multi-millennium civilization and culture.
Azerbaijan is seeking to integrate into Europe via the Turkic
world. Such a policy cannot appeal to Iran and runs contrary to Iran's
political and geopolitical ambitions.
Therefore, the envy with which Baku eyes Armenia's friendly and allied
relations with Iran, is both understandable and incomprehensible.
It is incomprehensible because Azerbaijan itself has done a great
deal to antagonize Iran.
In turn, Armenia's relations with Iran are a fine example of the fact
that Christianity and Islam can co-exist peacefully, and that the
religious factor in inter-ethnic and inter-state relations needn't
play a decisive role.
In any case, the Iranian side will continue to stick to its long
considered position on the Karabakh issue. Iran, like China, is happy
to wait, and as far as possible safeguard its borders against potential
inter-ethnic or inter-state clashes.
This centuries-tested policy is unlikely to be subject to change for
short-term considerations.
Iran has always had ethnic, cultural and purely strategic interests
in the Southern Caucasus. When the Turkic peoples destroyed Caucasian
Albania, Armenia was Iran's only remaining ally in the region. An
absolute loss of the Southern Caucasus would be a tragedy both for
Iran and for Russia.
Equally, the preservation of the Southern Caucasus as a friendly
region is very important for both Tehran and Moscow.
Both countries have historical interests and traditional contacts with
the peoples of the region. But today only Armenia and Nagorny Karabakh
continue the tradition of Caucasian friendship with Iran and Russia.
And while Iran acts as the corridor giving Armenia "access to the wider
world", Armenia serves as the bridge linking Tehran and Moscow. This
is a worthy role, and Armenia plays it without fault.
A Moscow-Yerevan-Tehran axis appears to be crystallizing.
It looks as though Iran projects Russia's geopolitical ambitions in
this region and vice versa.
Both Iran and Russia are being ostracized from European politics,
and in these conditions they have no other option but to seek closer
contact with each other and align a geopolitical, energy and economic
axis capable of helping them to withstand pressure from Europe.
Although the East-West division is nowadays somewhat artificial,
classical Oriental countries carry on the ancient traditions of
wise and considered inter-state policy. India, China and Iran,
for that matter, are all countries with which alliance could only
benefit Russia.
Levon Melik-Shakhnazaryan is a politologist.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not
necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress