The Iranian-Turkic dilemma of the USA and the entire “United West”

Chingiz Mammadov

Məqalənin azərbaycanca versiyası

The original article was published in Russian on February 2nd, 2024

Recent months have been marked by a visible deterioration in U.S.-Azerbaijani and generally Azerbaijani-“Western” relations. Although the phone call of Secretary of State Blinken to President Aliyev and the subsequent visit of his assistant O’Brien improved the situation a bit, the recent inclusion of Azerbaijan in the U.S. “watch list” of freedom of religion, and the crisis in relations with PACE made us question whether such a biased attitude of the “West” towards Azerbaijan is something accidental, short-term and transient.

The American, or rather, the “Western” version of explaining the current crisis, voiced from many tribunes, boils down to the two propositions:  first, that Azerbaijan is not democratic inside the country, and second, that Azerbaijan, to the displeasure of the U.S. and “the entire democratic community”, used military force to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, i.e. is aggressive in its “foreign” policy. Let us deal with each of these arguments separately.

How selectively the United States and the “democratic community” love democracy.

Let us recall the distant 1992, when the U.S. adopted the 907 Amendment to the Freedom Support Act and imposed sanctions against Azerbaijan. It happened during the rule of the Popular Front and the democratically elected President Abulfaz Elchibey.  And it is still in force. The excuses that it happened 30 years ago and that the Armenian lobby is to blame, are no longer convincing. 30 years was quite enough to understand the situation. In 1993-1994, NATO did not allow the Turkish government to send helicopters to save Azerbaijani refugees from Kalbajar, and residents were forced to escape the encirclement through snow-covered mountains, many of whom died or lost limbs.

Or let’s look to the recent history of Egypt. The U.S. and the entire “democratic community” was not fond of the democratically elected late President Morsi, but they really like the dictator el-Sisi, who came to power in the result of a bloody coup.

Thus, it becomes clear that the argument explaining the cold attitude of the “West” to Azerbaijan due to its undemocratic nature does not stand up to criticism. It is just an excuse, a smokescreen, not a reason.

What upset the “West”: the means used by Azerbaijan to restore its sovereignty or the restored sovereignty of Azerbaijan itself?

The second argument is Azerbaijan’s allegedly aggressive behavior towards Armenia. But Azerbaijan has not used force for 26 years, from 1994 to 2020. Nevertheless, as it is now absolutely clear, all these years the US and the “united West” have been on the side of Armenia, or more precisely, against Azerbaijan. It suffices to recall the “grief-stricken” representatives of the OSCE Minsk Group at the meeting with the President of Azerbaijan after the end of the 44-day war. Isn’t it surprizing? Azerbaijan has restored its territorial integrity, implemented the UN Security Council resolutions, but the Minsk Group co-chairs are grieving! Thus, it becomes clear that it is not about Azerbaijan’s aggressive policy, not about the means used to restore sovereignty, but about the very fact of restored sovereignty. This is where the dog is buried!

This explains, to put it mildly, the tolerant attitude of the “West” to the occupation of the territory of Azerbaijan by Armenia for three decades, the official US state aid to the Armenians of “Nagorno-Karabakh”, “above the head of Azerbaijani state – tantamount to the de-facto their recognition, labeling the territories of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenia as “disputed” in international documents, unlike the occupied territories of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, the actual non-recognition of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan by the non-attendance of the US and French embassies in Azerbaijan to liberated Karabakh, and much more.

As independent Ukrainian political analysts have correctly noted, Azerbaijan is blamed for what the “united West” is trying to help Ukraine with multi-billion-dollar expenditures. The US and France are waging a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, but are willing to cooperate with Russia against Azerbaijan, and are holding a secret meeting in early September 2023 to conspire against Azerbaijan. Isn’t that stunning? There is a paradox, and like any paradox, it raises questions that are waiting to be answered.

Where the dog is buried.

So, why is it that what Azerbaijan did makes the USA and the “democratic West” unhappy? Why did the U.S. and the “United West” for thirty years not resent Armenia’s military seizure of a significant part of Azerbaijan’s territory and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis, but almost immediately resented Azerbaijan’s liberation of its own territories and the exodus of a much smaller number of Armenians?

In addressing this question, it’s imperative to consider the strategic objectives pursued by both the USA and Western Europe, ensuring alignment with their overarching goals.

The main concerns of the “West” in Eurasia

The main goal of the United States in the 21st century is to maintain the global dominance achieved in the 20th century. This goal is served by appropriate foreign policy moves. If China is seen by the US as a threat to its global dominance, the main threat to its potential dominance in our region – considering Russia’s weakening influence – is seen by the US and the “united West” as a “stubborn” Iran.  But due to the rapid rise of Turkey and the restoration of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, another threat to the “dominance of the West” not only in the Middle East, but on the entire Eurasian continent has emerged – an economic, political and military alliance of Turkic states: Turkey, Azerbaijan and the countries of Central Asia.

The Turkic world, stretching from the Pacific Ocean to “United Europe”, which played a major role in world politics during the Middle Ages, and today possesses large reserves of natural resources, has positive demographic growth and astonishing technological breakthrough of Turkey, is considered by the “united West” as one of the main threats to its dominance.  Above all, in controlling land communications. Although the main role in international trade was played by sea routes for a long time, several factors have given land transportation, and thus the territories of the Turkic states a special importance, among them modern piracy, the development of highway systems and automobile transportation in general, as well as the importance of reducing the time for delivery of goods. The trade turnover between 1.5 billion China and India and developed Europe on the one hand creates the potential of “mediation” for the Turkic peoples, on the other – turns them into an object of close attention and attempts of domination by the “West”.

The hard dilemma of the West

The creation and strengthening of the Alliance of Turkic States has put the “united West” to face a difficult task. To explain it, let us go back 20 years. Seeing Saddam Hussein as a threat to its dominance in the Middle East, the US defeated Iraq and established a puppet government there. But the result not always turns out as expected. A side effect of this has been the manyfold strengthening of Iran.

By suppressing Iraq, the U.S. inadvertently strengthened the position of Iran and especially its theocratic leadership both inside and outside the country. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Iran’s theocratic leadership was in crisis, discontent was brewing, the protest movement was growing, the ferment among the intelligentsia and the youth’s admiration for the Western way of life in Iran was at its peak. It seemed a little more and another revolution would ripen in Iran. But the US aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan interrupted this process. Patriotism and anti-colonialism within the country increased greatly, in turn, outside the country Iran began to successfully promote the ideas of Shia solidarity and anti-Zionism. Having solved the problem of Iraq, the US inadvertently created an even more intractable problem with Iran.

The US is “indecisive”

The US and the “united West” now consider Iran and its nuclear program as one of their main problems. But despite all the rhetoric, they do not take effective measures against Iran. So, what is the reason for the U.S. indecisiveness? Certainly, one of the main reasons is the “size” of Iran. Having a large, young and ideologically-motivated population does not promise the US an easy and quick victory.

We should not forget Iran’s more than a century-long struggle against Western imperialism as well, first European and then American, starting with the revolution of 1906-1911, the Mosaddeq movement in 1952-1953 and ending with the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The Iranians have not forgotten the West’s support of Saddam Hussein in the war with Iran as well. Unlike Iraq, Iran has never been a colony, and the patriotism of the population and the state apparatus are very strong there.

But this is not the only factor depriving the West of room for maneuver. The West is even more concerned about the “post-war” balance of power in the region, even if the U.S. succeed in forcing Iran to surrender.

Typically, discussions regarding Iran revolve around absolute figures such as its total area, population, and the officially endorsed historical narrative. However, a closer examination reveals that despite a century-long assimilation policy—dating back to the overthrow of the Qajars and the ascent of Reza Shah to the throne in 1925—the dissolution of national identities into the ‘Persian-Shia religious-ideological melting pot’ has not fully transpired. Instead, this process has occurred only to a limited extent, primarily within the capital, Tehran. Like Soviet communists, the Iranian theocracy failed to achieve homogenization of the population. Azerbaijani Turks, Kurds, Baluchis, Arabs, Turkmens preserved their national culture, language, identity, self-consciousness and, most importantly, their areas of compact settlement.

Reasons for US indecisiveness

Let us now imagine – this is, of course, theoretical modeling, and I am not a supporter of it at all – that the U.S. and the “united West” attacked Iran and achieved their goals – the theocratic leadership of Iran was overthrown, a “democratic” regime like the current Iraqi regime was established in Iran, and national territories were given a certain autonomy, like the Kurds of Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. What do we have as a result? The Kurds of Iraq and the Kurds of Iran get an opportunity to unite in one state. After independence, the Kurds will be “unruly” not only towards Turkey, Arabs and Iran, but also towards the “united West”. If necessary, they will even unite with Turks, Arabs, Persians, etc. to oppose the West. From their current condition of “proxies”, they will turn into an independent force. In turn, the influence of the Arabs will increase in the south of Iran. In the east of Iran the influence of Pakistan and Afghanistan will increase, so “unpleasant” for the “united West”, etc.

But most importantly, the continuity of the Turkic realm is restored, interrupted in the 1920s firstly by the anti-Turkic policy of Reza Shah, enthroned by the British in place of the Turkic dynasties, which ruled in Iran for one thousand years and, secondly, by the transfer of Zangezur to Soviet Armenia. It means that all the centuries-long efforts of the “united West” and Russia, which acted in concert in this matter, came to naught. With the restoration of Azerbaijani Turks’ power on the territory of South Azerbaijan, even in the form of autonomy due to the fall of the theocratic regime in Tehran, there is no need for the Zangezur corridor, the Turkic world gains continuity through the territory of South Azerbaijan. All communications from China and India to Europe can pass through Turkic-populated and -governed territories. Both Russia and the West would lose their current leverage over the entire Turkic world.

Young does not mean weak and inexperienced.

This dilemma explains the West’s indecisiveness in dealing with Iran. Will the “united West” be able to resolve this dilemma? Most likely, not. Therefore, unable to either destroy Iran or counteract the technological and political rise of Turkey, the “West” has decided to concentrate its attacks on the “weak link” – in their opinion – the Republic of Azerbaijan, which is young on a historical scale. The goal is to weaken Azerbaijan and bring it under its control. Everything is being used – accusations in anti-democracy, in authoritarianism and totalitarianism, use of force to restore its territorial integrity, etc. It also becomes clear why the exodus of Armenians from Karabakh was organized. Tens of thousands of peaceful Karabakh Armenians in a 10 million Azerbaijan, who would pose no threat to the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan without separatist leadership, are now, after their exodus, being used as a pretext to attack Azerbaijan.  

Since the collapse of the USSR, for more than 30 years Russia and the West – as we have shown above, have long been at one with each other in opposing the revival of the Turkic world, and have used Armenia as a striking force, as a heavy weight on the feet of Azerbaijan in its movement forward.

New realities created by Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan, thanks to the skillful and independent policy of its leadership, having liberated the occupied lands and restored sovereignty over its entire territory, has put the U.S. and the “united West” before a new and unforeseen situation. If earlier Armenia, increased in territory and supported by both Russia and the West, could play the role of a restraining factor for the Turkic world, now defeated, humiliated, with a weak army, and with degenerating demography, can in no way prevent the Turkic world from uniting and developing intensively. And shrinking Russia needs not outposts, as previously, but guarantees of its security, which can now be provided by a strong Azerbaijan, and not by a weak Armenia. Therefore, the West had to put aside all decency, camouflage, and start an undeclared war against Azerbaijan itself. The masks have been really dropped.

Will the West be able to contain the development of events? First of all, prevent the opening of the Zangezur corridor?

If “yes”, then it will happen at the expense of a further degradation of Armenia, i.e. Armenia’s ability to withstand will decrease, and it will hardly be able to resist for a long time. In the meantime, the communications of the Turkic world will pass through Georgia, as it is now, and Iran, as it is planned. Although, the route through Armenia is shorter and cheaper, as the adage says, a problem which could be solved by money is no longer a problem, but only extra expenses. This will therefore not prevent the successful and fast development of the Turkic states.

When the world is “more than five”

Iran, meanwhile, will move toward the development of conventional and nuclear weapons. The only way to prevent this process is a full-scale war of the “united West” against Iran. But, as we have shown above, it does not bode well for the “West”, so it is unlikely, and if realized, it will weaken Iran and strengthen the Turkic world, which has a much bigger potential in opposing the hegemony of the “West” than Iran. Of course, the most ideal option for the West would be to ”bump” Turkey, Iran and Russia against each other, but as the events of recent years have shown, the leaders of all three countries are aware of these intrigues and will not give in to provocations.

Of course, Turkey will not be quietly watching its regional rival Iran building a nuclear weapon, so it is only a matter of time before Turkey develops a nuclear bomb too. The creation of a nuclear bomb by Iran and Turkey will end the nuclear dominance of the U.S. and the “united West” on a global scale. Only now will serious negotiations on a total ban on nuclear weapons begin. The “global south” will finally have a chance to be heard in the international arena. The world will finally be “bigger than five.”  

Of course, in the historical perspective, all attempts by the US and the “united West” to maintain their dominant role forever are doomed to failure. Otherwise, the world would still live under the heel of “Ancient Egypt” or Babylonia. Any empire is doomed in the end, just like the Roman, Ottoman, British, etc. But many details depend on the will and political moves of the leaders. For example, the success of the Turkic world in defending its interests in competition with the “united West,” Russia, India, and China will depend on the correct steps of the leaders of the Turkic states. It will be necessary to avoid dangers, remove obstacles, create and seize opportunities.

So, let us summarize the results.

First, the pressure on Azerbaijan as a key country for possible unification, development and prosperity of the Turkic world will only increase. A hard and long struggle awaits us. All methods and the “carrot and the stick” will be used against Azerbaijan. We will have to resist the stick, be careful with carrots, prepare our own food, and if necessary, cook “meals” for others. The hostile attitude of the West towards Azerbaijan is not a momentary fancy, but a reality that will last for decades, so Azerbaijan should prepare for a prolonged resistance, and do not miss chances to assert itself.

Secondly, the West will try to “split” Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, against the interests of these countries, away from Azerbaijan. Georgia, as an important link in the “Middle Corridor”, will be especially targeted. Hopefully, Georgia will properly weigh all the pros and cons and will be able to resist the pressure of the “West”. Azerbaijan should keep this in mind and successfully continue its current foreign policy.

Thirdly, it is imperative to not spoil relations with Russia and Iran unnecessarily, as the West will immediately take advantage of this as well. In relations with Russia and Iran both enmity and excessive rapprochement are dangerous.  

Fourth, the West will continue to use the slogans of democracy to divide the Azerbaijani society, as it is doing now, presenting marginalized people in its controlled media as “democracy heroes” and “fighting” for the rights of ethnic and other minorities.

Fifth, and most importantly, in the near future Azerbaijan will be forced to rely on autocratic rule, because under current conditions only this form of governance allows the country to protect sovereignty, to resist external threats and pressures. Western-style liberal democracy is fatal for Azerbaijan under the current realities, given the hostile attitude of the still powerful West towards it. No democracy in the world, including in the United States, could develop without very strong foreign support. This is currently absent in the case of Azerbaijan. Autocracy is an inevitable choice. But then the question arises how to safeguard the society from stagnation and ensure its dynamic and rapid development. And this is already the subject of another analysis.

Therefore, to be continued…

Chingiz Mammadov

---