Iran has placed its military on high alert — a logical move amid growing speculation about a possible strike against the Islamic Republic, whether by the U.S. and its allies or by Israel. In recent days, there has been no shortage of statements from Iranian officials claiming they are prepared for war and ready to retaliate, including targeting the U.S. military’s largest base on Diego Garcia island. While Tehran rejected former U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal for direct talks, it has now, according to Reuters, expressed readiness to continue indirect negotiations through Oman.
At first glance, this might inspire cautious optimism. Iran appears to be signaling openness to dialogue. Even the refusal of direct talks can be understood in the context of Eastern political tradition: agreeing to such negotiations after sharp rhetoric from Washington could be seen as a loss of face, carrying a high political cost within Iran.
However, seasoned observers recall that Iran has long employed a strategy of feigned dialogue. Across various administrations — doves and hawks alike — Tehran has often signaled willingness to talk without real intention to reach a deal. Iranian negotiators have been known to drag out procedural discussions endlessly, avoiding core issues while using the mere existence of talks as a shield against military escalation.
Today, there’s every reason to suspect Iran may be playing the same game again. The situation is dire. The threat of a military strike is very real. But making concessions is difficult, especially with Trump involved — a man unlikely to back down and eager for a high-profile foreign policy success, especially after failing to deliver a quick end to the war in Ukraine. Trump is also a notoriously tough negotiator, even with allies, and is unlikely to offer Tehran many concessions. So stalling — the classic “maybe the shah will die, maybe the donkey will talk” approach — may seem like a rational strategy in Tehran.
The question is how Washington will respond. The U.S. may refuse to engage in “talks for the sake of talks” and continue moving toward a military solution — particularly in light of recent developments. Iran has lost many of its key proxies, and contrary to expectations and its own threats, it has not defended them with the expected resolve. Israel has severely weakened Hezbollah in Lebanon, Turkey has succeeded in toppling the Assad regime, and Yemeni Houthis are under heavy airstrikes. Yet Tehran remains largely silent, issuing only statements. While strikes against the Houthis differ from strikes against Iran itself, Tehran has clearly lost the “staring contest” that typically precedes real conflict. This means that despite Tehran’s offer to continue indirect talks through Oman, the risk of war remains dangerously high.
Against this backdrop, Iran’s actions toward neighboring countries — especially Azerbaijan — take on new significance. Azerbaijan holds strategic importance and wields soft power influence inside Iran. From the outset, Baku has sought genuinely good-neighborly relations with Tehran. But diplomacy is a two-way street, and Tehran’s behavior has not always reflected the same goodwill.
Disturbing reports have surfaced in recent days: officers from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps allegedly hired a drug trafficker in Georgia to assassinate Shneor Segal, the chief Ashkenazi rabbi of Azerbaijan.
Some may draw parallels to the high-profile abduction and murder of Rabbi Tzvi Kogan in the UAE, particularly given the Emirati efforts in recent years to normalize ties with Israel. But what matters most is that this isn’t the first instance of Iranian-backed terror in Azerbaijan.
The list is long: the attempted assassination of the head of the Ganja executive authority, uprisings in Ganja and Nardaran, the murder of prominent Turkologist Ziya Bunyatov, numerous foiled terror plots targeting foreign diplomatic and commercial missions, and attacks on Azerbaijani embassies — first in the UK by followers of a radical cleric reportedly tied to Tehran, and later in Iran itself, where an embassy staff member was killed and two others injured. Only the courage and professionalism of the Azerbaijani security team prevented a massacre.
These incidents are far more serious than Tehran may realize. Yes, Azerbaijan continues to advocate for peaceful and neighborly relations with Iran and has repeatedly stated it would not allow its territory to become an anti-Iranian staging ground. But Baku will not tolerate a constant terrorist threat from the south.
Now the ball is in Tehran’s court. One can only hope that Iran’s leadership understands the stakes.
Nurani
Translated from minval.az
