Azerbaijan Armenia Tensions

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
5,090
Reactions
12,692
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
It's apparent that U.S. wants escalation, because this 50 man joint military exercise obviously means nothing in practice, but effectively bears a message to Russia, trying to force their hands in accommodating Armenian requests to intervene, in fear of growing Western influence in Armenia. And any such intervention will escalate, and may result in a distraction for some of the Russian forces away from Ukraine and another by-product might be a confrontation with Iran by Azerbaijan. Now how likely is this? 5%-10%. The empire has enough leeway, patience and money to gamble on these odds, and not care when the bet doesn't bear fruit. The Empire does gambles like these all the time; they lose the bets, and their detractors celebrate, not understanding that the empire does these gambles because they can afford it, not because they think they're gonna win. So this time also they will lose the gamble, because it's a tall order: Russia will not fall for it. Nothing will come of it.

Also on a side note, Iran who pretends to be against Azerbaijan because of Israeli cooperation, seems a little bit too silent about Armenia's cooperation with the Great Satan. So it was not about Israel, after all.
Figered out whats it about yet?
 

TheInsider

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
4,066
Solutions
1
Reactions
34 14,482
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Azerbaijan MP Vugar Bayramov:
Either Armenia will honour the 2020 cease-fire treaty or the game is over.

Armenian media:
The armed forces of Azerbaijan can attack at any moment.
 

Agha Sher

Experienced member
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,755
Reactions
11 9,303
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
If war is upon Azerbaijan, may Allah be with you and bring you victory.

This is a decisive moment for the Turkic century. If Iran makes a mistake, Turkiye and Azerbaijan must punish them severely.
 

Barry

Contributor
Messages
638
Reactions
1,605
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Northern Cyprus
Hoping for the best but expecting Armenia to take another step into the grave because they can't be anything but hateful murdering racists.
 

Agha Sher

Experienced member
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,755
Reactions
11 9,303
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
1694160775151.png


Military flights between Nakhchivan and Baku (actual destination is unknown). Addiontally, a strategic airlifter also went to Israel this morning.

Update: Landing in Ganja, close to the border.
 
Last edited:

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,449
Reactions
13 9,103
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Please no…no war.

accepting their surrender guaranteed another round of war. These people do not want peace, they are filled with grand ambitions and a level fanatical racial hatred not seen in many places.

Before the 2020 war their media and their politicians were talking about "new wars for new territories" talking about not only how they were going to take land from Azerbaijan but land from Turkiye. Meanwhile the international media never covered any of this, they portrayed these stupid shit heads as innocent victims defending against genocide. Because after all certain western states see Turks as a problem, so its quite natural they will use any idiots they can find and armenian statesman make exceptional ones when it concerns geopolitics.

Had Armenia been able to defeat Azerbaijan and with all all the horrors of actual real genocide that the armenians would bring with it, since thats what they've always done when they've had any power over Muslims, the international media would have either remained silent or justified it.

The biggest obstacle if this war breaks out is going to be international pressure created by one sided statesman and their media. Needs to be quick ideally within a couple of weeks.
 

Rooxbar

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
739
Reactions
57 2,220
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
Figered out whats it about yet?
Iran's use of Azerbaijan's relations with Israel to attack and threaten Azerbaijan is nothing but a superficial and ridiculous excuse for anyone who knows Iranians and Iran's modern history. Iran is Anti-Azerbaijan to its core as part of its dna. They helped Armenians in the first Karabakh war when there was no Israeli-Azerbaijani cooperation to begin with as the Azerbaijan Republic was just starting to take root.
If you don't believe me here is one of the prominent founding members of Hizbullah explaining it:

They also left Azerbaijan to be invaded by Jilo Assyrian-Armenian gangs during the first world war in cooperation with the English (that occupation was only broken due to Enver Paşa and Nuri Paşa's Kafkas İslam Ordusu). So Iran cannot be pushed to the edge because of Azerbaijan's relations with Israel, because that's not their problem with Azerbaijan. Most of Iran's sanction-avoidance mechanisms work through Dubai. UAE has the same level of relations with Israel if not more. I don't see them severing their economic relations with UAE citing their relations with Israel. Iran started threatening and attacking Azerbaijan when Azerbaijan blocked their use of Karabakh as the grey zone of IRGC's narcotic trade to Europe. That's the only issue at hand here, because Azerbaijan had the same amount of relations with Israel before the Karabakh war as well, and Iran seemed to be perfectly fine with that, aside from marginal squeaks here and there.
 

Rooxbar

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
739
Reactions
57 2,220
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
How does this answer my question?

This question.
Maybe I'm not understanding the question properly but if you're asking "what is the source of Iran's anti-Azerbaijan stance if it's not their relation with Israel", I do cite several reasons in that post. I reiterate them here: one is their use of Karabakh as a grey zone of narcotic trade by IRGC. Another is their inherent paranoid attitude toward Turkic-unification because of ramifications for South Azerbaijan independence.

Third and more fundamental problem is that the modern nation-building project in Iran was done by English and German historian and Archaeologists in the height of racialized view of the world leading up to WWII, and they built an identity for them based on Aryan ideology. As influence of Islam has waned due to the incompetence of Islamic Republic, more and more people have become more receptive of this nation-building Aryan story and this has shaped their outlook of the world. And a core component of this Aryan ideology is that Iran as an Aryan nation has Aryan brothers in Kurds and Armenians, but "Azeris" (a term popularized by an early proponent of this movement, Ahmad Kasravi) and Arabs inside Iran pose a problem to this uniform identity.

The solution was to say that Azeri is not a Turkic language but an Aryan language with Turkic impurities, but the Azeri people themselves are Aryans. For Arabs, a similar solution in terms of language was not possible as Arabic is a much better studied and known language inside Iran so they started calling Arabs of Iran, Arabic-speaking Iranians. This whole Aryan way of reading history holds that the Turkic dynasties that ruled Iran's geography for almost thousand years were pillagers and savages and to try to balance this with their story about Azeris, they claim that these Turkic dynasties had nothing to do with the pure "Aryan" Azeris. This view is reinforced by lionizing dynasties of Persian-origin that for short spans of time did rule parts of Iran, idealizing their periods of rule.

This whole thing might seem to be too high-brow and bookish to the reader of this forum but it is not. This propaganda forms the infrastructure of Iranian identity and is very concrete and tangible in Iranian's political thinking, being inculcated through school and university curriculum, t.v. programs, and popular media. And because Islamic Republic's intellectuals who were supposed to be Shia thinkers, were indoctrinated themselves into this ideology through Pahlavi schools, this Aryan nation-building project continued to shape Iranian society after the revolution as well, retaining its place in school and university curriculum, later becoming the Achilles heel of the Islamic regime itself.

As you can see being Anti-Azerbaijan and Anti-Turkish is, as I said, in the DNA of modern Iranian identity. This doesn't resemble some of our friends more or less imagined "Anti-Turkish" sentiments from other parts of the world (predominantly Western). Because those biases are not as pervasive in the bigger parts of the population in those societies as they have no idea about Turks and Turkey and see it like a summer resort, with good food; with a small politically-engaged minority having anti-Turkish bias emerging from their more fundamental anti-Islamic biases.
 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
5,090
Reactions
12,692
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
Maybe I'm not understanding the question properly but if you're asking "what is the source of Iran's anti-Azerbaijan stance if it's not their relation with Israel", I do cite several reasons in that post. I reiterate them here: one is their use of Karabakh as a grey zone of narcotic trade by IRGC. Another is their inherent paranoid attitude toward Turkic-unification because of ramifications for South Azerbaijan independence.

Third and more fundamental problem is that the modern nation-building project in Iran was done by English and German historian and Archaeologists in the height of racialized view of the world leading up to WWII, and they built an identity for them based on Aryan ideology. As influence of Islam has waned due to the incompetence of Islamic Republic, more and more people have become more receptive of this nation-building Aryan story and this has shaped their outlook of the world. And a core component of this Aryan ideology is that Iran as an Aryan nation has Aryan brothers in Kurds and Armenians, but "Azeris" (a term popularized by an early proponent of this movement, Ahmad Kasravi) and Arabs inside Iran pose a problem to this uniform identity.

The solution was to say that Azeri is not a Turkic language but an Aryan language with Turkic impurities, but the Azeri people themselves are Aryans. For Arabs, a similar solution in terms of language was not possible as Arabic is a much better studied and known language inside Iran so they started calling Arabs of Iran, Arabic-speaking Iranians. This whole Aryan way of reading history holds that the Turkic dynasties that ruled Iran's geography for almost thousand years were pillagers and savages and to try to balance this with their story about Azeris, they claim that these Turkic dynasties had nothing to do with the pure "Aryan" Azeris. This view is reinforced by lionizing dynasties of Persian-origin that for short spans of time did rule parts of Iran, idealizing their periods of rule.

This whole thing might seem to be too high-brow and bookish to the reader of this forum but it is not. This propaganda forms the infrastructure of Iranian identity and is very concrete and tangible in Iranian's political thinking, being inculcated through school and university curriculum, t.v. programs, and popular media. And because Islamic Republic's intellectuals who were supposed to be Shia thinkers, were indoctrinated themselves into this ideology through Pahlavi schools, this Aryan nation-building project continued to shape Iranian society after the revolution as well, retaining its place in school and university curriculum, later becoming the Achilles heel of the Islamic regime itself.

As you can see being Anti-Azerbaijan and Anti-Turkish is, as I said, in the DNA of modern Iranian identity. This doesn't resemble some of our friends more or less imagined "Anti-Turkish" sentiments from other parts of the world (predominantly Western). Because those biases are not as pervasive in the bigger parts of the population in those societies as they have no idea about Turks and Turkey and see it like a summer resort, with good food; with a small politically-engaged minority having anti-Turkish bias emerging from their more fundamental anti-Islamic biases.
You misunderstood.
It's apparent that U.S. wants escalation
Why does the the US want an escalation?
So it was not about Israel, after all.
As you stated,its not about Israel.
It's also not about Russia,the Ukraine war takes care of that.
Georgia cant be supported because it has a ''pro'' Russian government.
If it would be about iran,this action would not have been taken,the US would have shown support to azerbaijan.
So what else could it be(the only reason in my opinion)?
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,857
Reactions
6 18,707
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Maybe I'm not understanding the question properly but if you're asking "what is the source of Iran's anti-Azerbaijan stance if it's not their relation with Israel", I do cite several reasons in that post. I reiterate them here: one is their use of Karabakh as a grey zone of narcotic trade by IRGC. Another is their inherent paranoid attitude toward Turkic-unification because of ramifications for South Azerbaijan independence.

Third and more fundamental problem is that the modern nation-building project in Iran was done by English and German historian and Archaeologists in the height of racialized view of the world leading up to WWII, and they built an identity for them based on Aryan ideology. As influence of Islam has waned due to the incompetence of Islamic Republic, more and more people have become more receptive of this nation-building Aryan story and this has shaped their outlook of the world. And a core component of this Aryan ideology is that Iran as an Aryan nation has Aryan brothers in Kurds and Armenians, but "Azeris" (a term popularized by an early proponent of this movement, Ahmad Kasravi) and Arabs inside Iran pose a problem to this uniform identity.

The solution was to say that Azeri is not a Turkic language but an Aryan language with Turkic impurities, but the Azeri people themselves are Aryans. For Arabs, a similar solution in terms of language was not possible as Arabic is a much better studied and known language inside Iran so they started calling Arabs of Iran, Arabic-speaking Iranians. This whole Aryan way of reading history holds that the Turkic dynasties that ruled Iran's geography for almost thousand years were pillagers and savages and to try to balance this with their story about Azeris, they claim that these Turkic dynasties had nothing to do with the pure "Aryan" Azeris. This view is reinforced by lionizing dynasties of Persian-origin that for short spans of time did rule parts of Iran, idealizing their periods of rule.

This whole thing might seem to be too high-brow and bookish to the reader of this forum but it is not. This propaganda forms the infrastructure of Iranian identity and is very concrete and tangible in Iranian's political thinking, being inculcated through school and university curriculum, t.v. programs, and popular media. And because Islamic Republic's intellectuals who were supposed to be Shia thinkers, were indoctrinated themselves into this ideology through Pahlavi schools, this Aryan nation-building project continued to shape Iranian society after the revolution as well, retaining its place in school and university curriculum, later becoming the Achilles heel of the Islamic regime itself.

As you can see being Anti-Azerbaijan and Anti-Turkish is, as I said, in the DNA of modern Iranian identity. This doesn't resemble some of our friends more or less imagined "Anti-Turkish" sentiments from other parts of the world (predominantly Western). Because those biases are not as pervasive in the bigger parts of the population in those societies as they have no idea about Turks and Turkey and see it like a summer resort, with good food; with a small politically-engaged minority having anti-Turkish bias emerging from their more fundamental anti-Islamic biases.

Secular Pahlavi Dynasty and the Mullah run theocratic regime set up by Khomeini.

They both continued their usual Persian racism and superiority in a nation that is diverse and multi ethnic.

Khomeini only used Shia unity for his political interests while in reality he believed Persians should be the ones who should be ruling not the Shia Azerbaijanis, Hazaras, Shia Arabs and the Shia Kurds.

Reza Shah Pahlavi actually destroyed Azerbaijani language in numerous provinces.

Azerbaijani was alway seen as symbols of Turkic domination. As it was the language spoken by Safavids, Afsharids and the Qajars.

Leaked voices of Qasim Soleimani going on a rant against Turkic peoples who he accused of destroying Iran and its history.

This shia unity bs is just Persian domination.

Not to mention Iran actually try to ferment Secratarian conflicts in Azerbaijan by making Shias and Sunnis turning against each other

Azerbaijani is 80% Shia and 20% Sunni can you imagine what a Sunni vs Shia war would do to this nation.

Azerbaijan largely escaped any kind of secratarian conflicts that have wrecked most of the Islamic World.

In the Karabag War Sunnis and Shias actually fought and died together alongside Jewish and Christian soldiers of Azerbaijan.

Iran largely failed in trying to destabilise Azerbaijan.

Iran more or so afraid of Turkic countries becoming more powerful as Turkiye and Azerbaijan coming close to a land connection.

Also South Azerbaijan wants to break away from Iran.

Iran in the future could become of the biggest losers in the region.
 

Rooxbar

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
739
Reactions
57 2,220
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
You misunderstood.

Why does the the US want an escalation?

As you stated,its not about Israel.
It's also not about Russia,the Ukraine war takes care of that.
Georgia cant be supported because it has a ''pro'' Russian government.
If it would be about iran,this action would not have been taken,the US should have shown support to azerbaijan.
So what else could it be(the only reason in my opinion)?
Ah, ok. I think it might be to try to drag Turkey into a conflict with Iran.

U.S. and esp. the democrats wanted to neutralize Iran's nucelar threat with the JCPOA, so they got it under Obama. Republicans didn't want any of that, so they got out of JCPOA under Trump, increasing sanctions. But Iran's nuclear program advanced faster under Trump's campaign of "maximum pressure" than it did under JCPOA and IAEA supervision.

So the question was "If sanctions are not deterring Iran from getting the bomb, and actually accelerating it, what would the Trump admin's answer be to Iran getting closer and closer to the bomb?" Some claim that they would not care similar to what happened in the North Korean case, and they will just try to neutralize Iran by isolating them through sanctions. This is ludicrous as Iran is not North Korea. Iran has Turkey and Saudi Arabia as neighbors and it also doesn't have a superpower like China containing it next door. So a nuclear Iran will not be tolerated like North Korea is tolerated.

The answer to the question above was postponed since Obama, cough I mean Joe Biden came back after Trump. And the campaign promise was to get back to the JCPOA. U.S. wanted it, Iran wanted it but several factors (Iran's maximalist requests, then the deadly protests in Iran, rendering a deal with the Islamic regime a PR disaster for the Liberal admin) led the negotiations to last longer than expected until the Ukraine war happened.

Ukraine war was the last nail in the coffin of JCPOA (after the Iran protests had made it less likely to happen already), as it showed completely that Iran, in the new cold war, has taken its side firmly on the side of Russia. I don't think even Democrats are now trying to contain Iran diplomatically, contrary to the pretenses. Democrats are saying that although JCPOA is out of the question, diplomacy is still the only way. But what diplomacy without an actual deal?

True, there was the prisoner swap deal and the release of Iran's frozen funds in South Korea in the past weeks
and yes there were informal talks to ease sanctions practically so Iran can export oil in exchange for limiting its enrichment from 80% to 60%.

But every time there's talk of an Iran deal, Republicans, AIPAC and Israel screech. But there isn't a peep from them against these informal talks and ease of sanctions? Is this bipartisan or is it ecause they are temporary containment? Maybe both. But there's no guarantee that either side will honor these promises in the long run, and that's by design; that's why they are informal. Iran would definitely want U.S. to lift sanctions. U.S. wants Iran to stop Nuclear and Ballistic programs. Neither will do it. U.S. establishment has made their mind. Diplomacy was tried by Dems, it failed. Sanctions were tried by both gop and dems and they failed also. This time, they will attack Iran, if Iran tries to get close to the bomb. Iran sees getting closer to the bomb as the only way to win concessions in terms of sanctions. They also desperately need lifting of sanctions as they are about to implode as a society. So based on the principles of Realist international relations, both sides due to paranoia will push each other to their limits. The temporary containment is due to the exhaustion of ammunition in the Ukraine war and also pretty much because the West is pre-occupied over there.

Iran was pushing for the bomb with enrichment levels exceeding 83% for the first time in history couple of months ago, as they were losing hope that JCPOA is possible and because the widespread protests last year were supported by the West. U.S. wasn't willing to give the JCPOA card to Iran, but nevetheless wanted to stop Iran from getting the bomb; so they wooed them back onto the negotiation table giving hope to Iranians that a deal was possible after all. U.S. convinced Iran to limit enrichment to 60% level for now, without giving them a formal deal. With this, they effectively postponed a military action to the next administration. The next admin might be Republican, lifting the burden of trying to sell the war to the American public from Democrats' shoulders. But even if it's a Dem admin, it's the second term and the negative impact might not carry to the next Dem nominee. Second of all, Israel seems to be content with these temporary containment schemes, signalling that they also want to postpone the military confrontation to the next American admin.

So to conclude: U.S. will not tolerate a nuclear Iran unlike North Korea. To contain Iran there are two ways: Diplomatic (with or without sanctions) or Military. Diplomatic efforts failed due to Iran's firm positioning with the Eastern Bloc in the new cold war, leading to the death of JCPOA resuscitation attempts. Only remaining option is the military option. U.S. can't do the military option right now, being preoccupied in Ukraine. Hence, they have to contain Iran somehow for now. They do the temporary informal deal, whereby postponing the actual containment to the next administration.

Meanwhile if they can relegate the dirty work of weakening Iran, for the upcoming war, to someone else, they'd be happy to do it. Hence the escalation attempts in Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict. They also get a pre-occupied, weakened and a more firmly in Western-camp dependent Turkey as a bonus.
 
Last edited:

Bogeyman 

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
9,192
Reactions
67 31,255
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

Russia preparing to stage coup in Armenia through Wagner​



Before the death of the former leader of Wagner private military company, Yevgeny Prigozhin, there were 3000 Wagner mercenaries in Armenia, pro-government Telegram channel Baghramyan 26 noted, APA reports.

According to the Kremlin plan, the main goal is to remove Pashinyan and his team from power by using the Wagner mercenaries existing in the country, the source says.

It was also added that the “last straw” for Russian President Vladimir Putin was the joint exercise of Armenian-American servicemen.

According to the information, right now the number of Wagner mercenaries in Armenia has reached 12000 and they were ordered to take action the day before yesterday.

 

Lool

Experienced member
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,918
Reactions
13 5,030
Nation of residence
Albania
Nation of origin
Albania
So, will Azerbaijan do the right thing and carry out the military operation to end this 3rd rate story once and for all or will they believe some Armenian lies again for the 1000000th time until Armenia develops its own military capabilities?

One of the main reasons for Azerbaijan losing Karabagh in the first place was the more advanced Armenian military at teh time; I wonder whether the top brass realise this or not
 

Agha Sher

Experienced member
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,755
Reactions
11 9,303
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
1694186495463.png


Intensive militry and commercial flights to Nakhchivan today. This is very unusual. AZ is probably shifting soldiers to the area after armenian buildup
 
Top Bottom