Shireen Hunter: Russia is playing the Zangezur card against Iran/ Iran is losing its geopolitical position

Shireen Tahmaasb Hunter, a professor of political science at Georgetown University, tells that Moscow sees Iran as a rival and not a partner.

News ID: 5077

Date: 07 September 2024 - 10:16

TABNAK –Shireen Tahmaasb Hunter, a professor of political science at Georgetown University, tells that Moscow sees Iran as a rival and not a partner.

She adds, “Moscow's Zangezur decision is the latest proof of Russia's manipulative approach towards Iran.”

Following is the text of the interview:

*Russia has recently announced that it supports the construction of the Zangezur Corridor. After Putin's visit to Baku, Moscow has clearly clarified its position in this regard. This was despite the fact that Moscow had not supported the construction of this corridor in the beginning. What is your assessment?

I am not surprised by Putin's action. He pursues Russia's interest, notably preventing any erosion of Moscow's influence. If it means ignoring Iran's interests, and so be it. I have been saying for at least thirty years that Iran-Russia relations are skewed in Moscow's favor. I called these relations ‘a fool's bargain’. I have also warned that Moscow sees Iran as a rival and not a partner. Moscow's Zangezur decision is the latest proof of Russia's manipulative approach towards Iran. I am surprised that given Russia's imperialist behavior towards Iran for over three hundred years, Tehran trusted Moscow.

*Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan recently announced that he has no intention to leave the Collective Security Treaty Organization. This was while Yerevan had suspended its membership in this organization and was even planning to leave it. What are the reasons for the change in Armenia's position?

Armenia, too, is after its own interests. I think NATO's refusal to consider Armenia's potential membership in the alliance, might have persuaded it to remain in the collective security arrangement so as not antagonize Moscow. Anyway, this security alliance is of no real value as the Qarabakh war illustrated.

*Russia has announced that it will convince Iran to accept the Zangezur Corridor. Armenia has also announced that if it has sovereignty over the Zangezur Corridor, it has no objection to it. It seems that Iran will lose the most in this equation. What is your assessment?

In view of Iran's international isolation and its difficult relations with the West, Moscow believes that Iran has no other place to go and that ultimately it would have to accept the new geopolitical realities. Moscow is certain that it can coerce Iran to accept these changes. The difference between convincing and coercing when the parties are as unequal as Iran and Russia is not much.

*Russia's support for the construction of the Zangezur Corridor by the Republic of Azarbaijan has also caused the criticism of Iran's Foreign Minister. This criticism is rare. Do you think the main reason for this criticism is only because of the Zanegzur issue?

Criticizing is of no use. Once Armenia and Azerbaijan, plus Russia, and of course Turkey, agreed to effective changes in regional borders, Tehran cannot do much. To prevent the corridor from being realized, it would have to take military actions, which would be very costly. Even if Iran's president criticized Russia's policy, it would have no effect.  Iran is in a weak bargaining position vis a vis Russia and, in fact, all of its neighbors.

*According to the new developments, it seems that a peace agreement between Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan is imminent. This agreement will be realized with the effective participation of Russia. It seems that Russia will remain the main actor in the Caucasus. What do you think?

I am not so sure that Russia would be the most influential actor in the Caucasus. The US and its Secretary of State Antony Blinken were instrumental in bringing about peace between Yerevan and Baku. In view of its high influence in Baku, Turkey, too, would remain