The “shashlik Prime Minister” has already been granted an audience with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Frankly speaking, the head of the government responsible for the killings in Karabakh, the destruction and desecration of mosques, cemeteries, shrines, and mausoleums—actions for which Yerevan doesn’t even think to apologize—being received by Ayatollah Khamenei is, to use the most polite term, nonsense.
However, Ayatollah Khamenei did not limit himself to just meeting Pashinyan, who ordered the missile strike on Ganja, where the famous “Imamzade” complex is located among other things. In his conversation with Nikol Vovaevich, he confirmed the “necessity of preserving Armenia’s territorial integrity” and then stated that “Iran considers the Zangezur road harmful to Armenia and is firm in its position.” He added at the end that “cooperation between the two countries will continue consistently, based on established interests and regardless of the policies of others.”
Let’s set aside the messages Khamenei tried to convey to Pashinyan, pondering that cooperation between Iran and Armenia will continue consistently: whether he advised Nikol Vovaevich not to worry too much about Pezeshkian’s election, or graciously permitted him to befriend the French. But the statement supporting “Armenia’s territorial integrity” at the very least requires clarification. First, we don’t recall any strong statements from Iran supporting Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity when Armenia occupied 20% of our territory. Back then, Iran preferred to speak ambiguously and evasively. Second, Armenia’s territorial integrity is not under threat. Why did the spiritual leader of Iran need to promote Armenian narratives—this is a question to which we would like to hear an answer. And there is no clarity about the borders in which Iran is so concerned about “Armenia’s territorial integrity,” where the constitution lays claim to Karabakh: in the borders recognized by the UN? Or in those drawn by Yerevan themselves?
Khamenei’s remark about the Zangezur corridor especially demands commentary. First, what is so incredibly “harmful” about this road for Armenia? Is it in the peace guarantees from Azerbaijan? In the transit fees for goods? Or something else? Moreover, why is Iran so worried about it? Is Tehran just trying to soothe the Armenian audience? Or are they frightened by the prospects of improved transport links between mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan? And most importantly, do both Yerevan and Tehran understand that the opening of the Zangezur corridor is not a matter of someone’s desire or reluctance, but Armenia’s signed obligations? Obligations that will have to be fulfilled in any case?
Equally informative is what was not said at the meeting. Ayatollah Khamenei did not call on Pashinyan to ensure the right of return for ethnic Azerbaijanis expelled from Armenia in 1988-1989. He did not advise him to hurry up with concluding a peace treaty and cease armed provocations.
All this unfolds against the backdrop of “leaks” that Tehran and Yerevan have agreed on arms supplies from Iran to Armenia worth half a billion dollars, including Shahed drones. This news is denied both in Tehran and Yerevan, but as we know, words are not sparrows; once they fly out, you can’t catch them. Against this backdrop, Iranian statements about the Zangezur corridor take on a completely different meaning.
In this case, we are forced to warn: Armenia’s and its patrons’ persistence in the matter of opening the Zangezur corridor could have completely unexpected consequences. Armenia and its allies, with their irresponsible policies, will achieve that the Zangezur road will run through Azerbaijani territory.
A. Shakur
Translated from minval.az
