The old saying “When guns speak, diplomats fall silent” may still hold some relevance—but only to a certain extent. As experts remind us, it is precisely during times of war that diplomatic initiatives can serve as the “gate” or “window” through which the parties—or at least one of them—can retreat without “losing face.” The exchange of strikes between Israel and Iran proves this once again. Notably, Azerbaijani diplomacy plays no minor role in this process.
Azerbaijan has prepared for possible scenarios that could affect neighboring countries under sanctions — this was stated by Presidential Aide Hikmet Hajiyev during the panel discussion “Middle Corridor: A New Geopolitical and Economic Lifeline” at the GLOBSEC 2025 forum. According to him, Azerbaijan has found itself at the epicenter of a complex geopolitical landscape: on one side, the ongoing Russia–Ukraine conflict; on the other, the escalation between Israel and Iran. Hajiyev continued: “We anticipated the development of such a situation and have to some extent prepared ourselves both for new geopolitical shocks from the Middle East and for potential scenarios involving our sanctioned neighbors.”
And it should be added: it is unlikely that this foresight was limited to stockpiling tea and sweets at the Astara border checkpoint, through which Russian and Kazakh citizens were “evacuated” from Iran. It is quite possible that Azerbaijan has a few unexpected diplomatic moves up its sleeve. In any case, one development that deserves serious attention is the phone call between Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov and his Iranian counterpart Seyed Abbas Araghchi.
According to Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry, Bayramov expressed concern over the escalating situation around Iran’s nuclear sites amid Israeli attacks. He offered condolences over the deaths of the Chief of the General Staff, several officials, and civilians, stressed that the developments surrounding the nuclear facilities are deeply troubling, and underscored the need to resolve such issues through dialogue and diplomacy, in accordance with international law and its principles. “Given the risk of the conflict spreading across a broader region, the importance of reviving diplomatic efforts was once again emphasized,” the Ministry stated. Furthermore, Bayramov made it clear that Azerbaijan will never allow its territory to be used for attacks against third countries — including neighboring and friendly Iran.
Such a position by Azerbaijan is entirely logical and acceptable. The country maintains good-neighborly relations with Iran, broad cooperation with Israel, and any conflict at its borders poses inherent risks. It is therefore unsurprising that Azerbaijan is in no hurry to take sides and consistently calls on the parties to exercise restraint and resolve disputes at the negotiating table.
This, of course, does not yet mean that Azerbaijani mediation in the escalating conflict is on the horizon. But calling for a return to negotiations is precisely what both sides currently lack.
Finally, the risk of the conflict expanding has not disappeared. IRGC generals are already voicing familiar threats to close the Strait of Hormuz — the route through which the majority of Persian Gulf oil is exported. For Western economies, this would be catastrophic, and any attempt at a “tanker war” in the strait would likely prompt a response not only from Israel — but also potentially from the United States. Let us recall that the U.S. has previously conducted military operations against Iran’s navy in the Persian Gulf, during the first “tanker war” sparked by Iran amid its conflict with Iraq. Back then, the U.S. avoided striking its own bases in the “oil emirates.” But how Tehran would act this time is difficult to predict.
Another key question: are the parties themselves ready for diplomacy? Israel, it seems, no longer believes in diplomacy based on past experience and prefers to address its hostile neighbors’ nuclear ambitions with missiles and bombs. In Iran, on the evening of June 13, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mohammad Eslami, assured the public that despite Israeli attacks and the deaths of leading nuclear scientists, the country would continue its nuclear program.
Whether that stance has shifted following the recent “missile duel” is hard to say. On one hand, Iran managed to breach Israeli air defenses and strike not only residential neighborhoods in Tel Aviv but also the “Israeli Pentagon” — the Kirya complex. On the other hand, Israel has promised to “expand the operation” and continue targeting ballistic missile positions. Some experts believe Iran still retains the technical capacity to pursue its nuclear program, while others argue the infrastructure has suffered critical damage. The killing of nuclear scientists will also play a role.
On top of that, Israel shows no signs of stopping. It may well be that by the time Tehran is “ready” to return to negotiations, there may be nothing left to discuss. And the most dangerous thing for Tehran is that such an outcome would suit many countries — even some of those now publicly condemning Israeli strikes. In many capitals, nuclear weapons in the hands of the current Iranian leadership are seen as too great a risk. And many would quietly approve if “bad guy Israel” took it upon itself to bomb Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. With all the consequences that would entail for the Islamic Republic.
Nurani
Translated from minval.az
