Azerbaijan refuses to be pulled into regional confrontation

The Middle East has once again entered a dangerous phase. Iran and Israel have exchanged strikes, while the political and military rhetoric on both sides has sharply intensified. Although the latest round of attacks may formally appear to have ended, the risk of a wider escalation remains high.

After Israel announced a series of strikes on Iranian targets, including in the north-west of the country, Tehran responded with its own warning. Iranian military officials said their latest round of attacks on Israel had been completed, but warned that any continuation of Israeli operations in Lebanon would trigger a tougher response.

Israel rejected the warning. Defence Minister Israel Katz said the Israeli army would continue its operations against Hezbollah and would strike targets in Beirut if northern Israel came under attack. He also stated that Israel would not accept threats from Iran.

The United States has also stepped in diplomatically. President Donald Trump called on both Iran and Israel to halt the escalation and held a phone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Washington has reason to be concerned: another open confrontation between Iran and Israel is hardly what the White House needs at a time when reports continue to suggest that the US and Iran may be close to some form of understanding.

Israel’s position, however, remains far more uncompromising. For Israel, the issue is not abstract: Hezbollah’s attacks from Lebanon directly threaten the country’s northern regions. Iran, meanwhile, is trying to preserve its influence through regional allies and proxy forces, especially after the weakening of its position in Syria. Conflicts of this kind are rarely easy to stop once they enter an active phase.

Against this background, another issue deserves attention. Shortly before the latest escalation, CNN published allegations claiming that Israeli special forces had allegedly operated against Iran from Azerbaijani territory. Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry immediately and firmly rejected the claim.

Baku’s position is clear: Azerbaijan will not allow its territory or airspace to be used against Iran or any other country. This has been stated repeatedly at the highest level. Azerbaijan has no foreign military presence on its soil and has consistently built its regional policy on the principle of good-neighbourly relations.

That is precisely why such allegations look less like journalism and more like an attempt to drag Azerbaijan into someone else’s conflict. The goal is obvious: to create mistrust between Baku and Tehran and to push Azerbaijan into a confrontation that serves neither its interests nor regional stability.

There may have been a time when some could have viewed involvement in an anti-Iranian campaign through the prism of Western expectations. But Azerbaijan has learned from experience. The story of Section 907 remains a clear example: it was suspended when Washington needed Baku’s support, and revived again when that need disappeared.

Azerbaijan has also drawn conclusions from the situation of Gulf monarchies, which have repeatedly faced Iranian pressure and attacks while not always receiving the decisive protection they expected from their Western allies.

For Baku, the lesson is simple. Azerbaijan will not become a platform for foreign military adventures. It will not sacrifice its national interests for geopolitical games designed elsewhere. Its priority is security, sovereignty, regional stability and balanced relations with neighbouring states.

Azerbaijan has no reason to be drawn into a war that is not its own.