News.Az interviews Israeli international relations expert Arye Gut.

What can you say about the recent explosions and attempted explosion targeted against Israeli embassies in Delhi, Bangkok and Tbilisi?

I think that the Iranian mullocracy and its pals are linked to the two explosions in the Thai capital Bangkok. This proves that Tehran is continuing state terrorism. It is no secret that the leadership of the Islamic Republic and their allies in the militarized Lebanese Shia organization Hezbollah continue to represent a threat to regional and global stability.

A blast occurred in a house where Iranian Sayed Moradi was staying in Bangkok yesterday. Two people who were in the house with him managed to get away. Moradi also wanted to get away and tried to take a taxi, but the driver refused to take the Iranian who was bleeding. As police officers tried to detain him, he threw a grenade towards the police, but it detonated close to the Iranian, blowing off his legs.

However, Iran remains the main threat to Israel, the region and the world. This country is the main exporter of terror in the world. Unfortunately, for many years the West had been ignoring the threat for political reasons. But now the question tops the international agenda. This also applies to Europe, the United States and moderate Arab regimes that fear the regional ambitions of the Iranian regime. Iran’s actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Yemen and South America are not directed against Israel.

For a long time Israeli security structures have been following the activities of Iranian intelligence, the Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah terrorists. It is worth mentioning that they conducted joint attacks, for example, in Argentina in 1992 and 1994. In the past four years, these structures have made new attempts to strike at Israeli targets. Several terrorist attacks were prevented in Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Thailand, Turkey, and several other countries. We have enough evidence to suggest that they are behind the terrorist attack in New Delhi and the attempted attack in Tbilisi. Do not forget that the Iranians were planning to attack Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States and the Israeli ambassador to Azerbaijan.

How do you assess the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s diplomatic note to its friendly neighbour, Azerbaijan?

This note was handed to Azerbaijan’s ambassador, Javanshir Akhundov. It argues that Baku allegedly assisted agents of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, associated with attacks against Iranian scientists.

I think that Azerbaijan is a country plagued by years of terror, and it would never allow any terrorist activity on its territory. Summoning the ambassador of Azerbaijan and presenting him with the note is a harsh reaction from the Iranian side to the note earlier presented to Iran by Azerbaijan, concerning the prevention of terrorist attacks on the territory of Azerbaijan with the participation of individuals associated with the Iranian secret services.

How can you explain this strange foreign policy behaviour of Iran towards friendly, Shia Azerbaijan?

It is worth mentioning 1992, when Armenia was at war with Azerbaijan and in confrontation with Turkey, which eventually blocked all four railways out of the country running through their territory. Armenia’s northern neighbour – Georgia – was exhausted by the burden of their own problems: civil war and hostilities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. As a result, the Abkhaz section of the Trans-Caucasian railway linking Armenia with Russia was blocked. It is in these circumstances that diplomatic relations were established between Armenia and Iran.

It can hardly be doubted that if it were not for the "balanced" policy of Tehran in the region, Armenia would face incomparably more serious problems. It was during this difficult period of history that the 42-kilometre section of the joint border became the only stable access of Armenia to the outside world. The nearly 400-km highway linking Yerevan with Iranian customs was nicknamed "The Road of Life". The construction of a bridge across the Araz river, which forms the border, was of great importance. Work was started in 1994 during the occupation of Azerbaijani territory when Iranian ayatollahs and generals calmly watched the destruction of Azerbaijani towns and villages and the suffering of their Azeri Muslim brothers. The opening of this important communication corridor in 1996 became the first major joint project.

It turns out that today Armenia is a very important economic and political partner of Iran?

Today it is a fact that Armenia is the only strategic partner of Iran in the South Caucasus. The importance of ties with Iran to Armenia is dictated primarily by the prospect of ending dependence on energy supplies from Russia through Georgian territory. Now this problem is a top priority for Yerevan. Transportation routes linking Armenia with the outside world pass via Iran. In terms of the economic and transport isolation by Azerbaijan and Turkey, Iran plays an important role for Armenia as a country that provides a strategically important outlet to Asia and the Middle East.

Does Iran have the same view on regional issues as Azerbaijan?

At first glance, the position of the mullocratic Iran looks strange, especially considering that Iran is home to about 35 million Azerbaijanis who, unlike their Turkish Sunni relatives, are close to the Iranians. However, to understand the logic of Armenian-Iranian relations, it is necessary to understand that for a number of reasons Iran is not interested in strengthening Azerbaijan’s position.

Tehran is pursuing a very specific purpose related to its national security and territorial integrity, namely, preventing the strengthening of independent and strong Azerbaijan. It is worth recalling that in 1992 Tehran spoke out with a peacekeeping mission on Nagorno-Karabakh. But the end is known. When the then Armenian president, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, was on a visit to Tehran, the Armenians occupied Shusha and Lachin, thereby capturing the corridor connecting Karabakh with Armenia.

That is, Armenia already had no need for any intermediary services. As for Iran, it  considered its mission fulfilled. This means that when Tehran had to choose between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the former and current leadership of Iran decided in favour of Armenia. And afterwards Iran did not join the blockade of Armenia, which Turkey imposed right after the Armenian armed forces invaded Kalbajar in 1993. This blockade would have further complicated the difficult situation in the Armenian state, would have led to disaster, and would have made Armenia compliant and pliable. But, apparently, this scenario was not profitable for Iran.  Instead, Tehran did not only refuse to join the two fellow Muslim nations,  but provided its ports and roads for the provision of supplies to Armenia, which gave the latter the opportunity to retain the occupied Nagorno-Karabakh within its zone of influence.

It should be noted that in contrast to Iran and Azerbaijan, which have serious disagreements on many geopolitical issues, including the division of the Caspian Sea, Iran and Armenia maintain a warm and trusting relationship.

In this connection, it is worth mentioning the visit of Azerbaijan’s national leader, Heydar Aliyev, to Iran in May 2002, when the Azerbaijani leader called on Iran to oppose the policy of Armenia against the "occupied lands of Azerbaijan" to which former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said: "Armenia is not in Israel, and Azerbaijanis are not Palestinians.” Here’s the real  policy of the Iranian regime. Tehran stands "in defence of poor and oppressed Muslims” worldwide. And here, with a 600-km border with Muslim Azerbaijan, 20% of whose territory is occupied by Armenia and which has one million Muslim refugees, it develops a relationship with the aggressor.
So why did the Iranian political elite and leaders not condemn Armenia which occupied 20% of Muslim Azerbaijani lands and refuses to implement the four UN Security Council resolutions adopted in 1993, requiring Armenia to withdraw from the occupied Azerbaijani territories. Here it would be timely to remember the great words of Lord Palmerston (foreign minister and later prime minister of Great Britain in the middle of the 19th century - Ed.): "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual." Unfortunately, this is now the harsh reality of international relations and Azerbaijan has to understand and realize this.