From the first day the Zangezur Corridor came to the agenda, many reactions were expressed in Iran through both official and unofficial channels. It was repeatedly emphasized that the corridor was Iran's red line. So much so that on July 30, during the meeting held on the occasion of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's participation in Masoud Pezeshkian's swearing-in ceremony in Tehran, it was once again reminded face-to-face and publicly by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that Zangezur was a red line for Iran. Discussions on the Zangezur Corridor, which Iranians describe as the "Turan Corridor", "NATO Corridor" or "Imaginary Corridor", were reignited in recent days with high-level support statements from Russia. Although there was another conciliatory statement from Russia, it is possible to see an article on the subject in almost every newspaper in the Iranian press. In this article, not the discussions in Iran, but the reflections of Iran's attitude towards Zangezur in Armenia will be discussed in general terms.
Zangezur Discussions in Armenia
To summarize Armenia's view on the Zangezur issue, it can be said that Armenian public opinion is divided on this issue. However, this separation does not occur on the corridor issue, but rather on the axis of "sovereignty". While a large group led by opposition parties directly opposes this issue, the ruling Civil Contract Party takes a distant approach to the subject. The reason for this is the special status proposed for the corridor. Both the government and the opposition agree that this road should not have a special status. The point that separates the government from the opposition is that while the opposition is against all kinds of integration, the Pashinyan government wants to turn Armenia into a kind of transportation hub. For this purpose, Nikol Pashinyan proposed a project called "Peace Junction". With this project, he aims to make Armenia an important junction point in terms of transportation between the Caspian, Black Sea and Persian Gulf, thus trying to take the issue beyond the corridor discussion.
Reflections of Iran's Corridor Response in Armenia
Immediately after Russia's statements, Iranian officials made diplomatic moves. In this context, a series of meetings were held with Armenian officials. In addition to the statements from Iran, Iran's Ambassador to Armenia, Mehdi Sobhani, entered into active work. On September 6, Sobhani, who invited the Armenian press, said, "Our attitude towards removing obstacles is very clear and precise. We are not against removing obstacles. However, I am sure that all actions within the framework of removing obstacles should take place within the framework of national and state sovereignty." Sobhani also said, "Full control should be in the hands of the Armenian government and within the framework of Armenia's sovereignty. We live in the 21st century, not the 19th century. Countries have independence and sovereignty and they enjoy this right," thus expressing that they defend a view parallel to the Pashinyan government.
Sobhani also met with Armen Grigoryan, Secretary of the Armenian National Security Council. Referring to the deep ties and relations between the two countries, Grigoryan said, "No power can break the land connection between Iran and Armenia," showing an approach to calm Iran's threat perceptions. He also thanked Sobhani for Iran's stance. Similarly, Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Vahan Kostanyan called his Iranian counterpart and thanked him on his social media account for Iran's support for Armenia's territorial integrity.
Armenian political scientist Edgar Vardanyan spoke to Azatutyun about Iran's reaction to the issue. Vardanyan stated that Iran's reaction was based on current statements and that the country was taking a preventive stance. Regarding Iran's effort, Vardanyan expressed that this activity was unprecedented and surprised even many Iran experts. He emphasized that the current discourse was significantly different from previous ones. Vardanyan stated that he thought there might be more worrying and concrete information in closed sessions for the reason for all this reaction, but that even the information open to the public was sufficient for the relevant states to be concerned.
Ruben Melkonyan, dean at Yerevan State University and a Turkologist, was also one of the names who drew attention to the situation in the region and Iran's approach. Melkonyan, who said, "It is destructive to prepare society for confrontation with Turkey in the 21st century with the fedai songs of the 19th century," stated that approaching today's problems with old methods would be destructive. He referred to the geopolitical changes in the region and Iran's balancing role. He emphasized that Armenia did not have sufficient power against Turkey's increasing influence in the region. He said that Iran's attitude was a balancing factor and that the Iranian Ambassador reiterated his opposing stance on the "Zangezur Corridor" issue.
Garo Paylan, former Member of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, was also one of the names who spoke to the Armenian press about the issue. Speaking to Aravot, Paylan stated that if the road in question were to be opened, it could have serious consequences for Armenia and could endanger the country's independence. He also said that in order not to repeat the mistakes made in the past, it is necessary not to rely on a single power.
Conclusion
While the Armenian government continues to emphasize the protection of the country's sovereign rights, it does not object to the idea of a transportation route. Pashinyan is trying to advance the process on the basis of the "Peace Junction" project. On the other hand, Pashinyan's priority is the amendment of the Armenian Constitution. In Armenia, pro-government and pro-Western figures accept geopolitical necessities while advocating strengthening relations with the EU and reducing dependence on Russia. Opponents continue to accuse the Pashinyan government of weakness. Nevertheless, what keeps Pashinyan in power despite losing the war is the people's desire for Armenia's dependence on Russia to end. Armenia, which cannot receive support from Russia, sees Iran as a balancing factor, but it is not possible to see Iran as a sole support due to the conditions Iran is in.
This article was first published in TAV on 16.09.2024.
Comments