NEW CHALLENGES TO ARMENIAN-IRANIAN RELATIONS
By Richard Giragosian
hetq
14:59, February 7, 2012
Richard Giragosian assesses new challenges to Armenia’s relationship
with Iran, as sanctions against Iran are tightened and threats of
military action mount over the Iranian nuclear programme, but also
sees an opportunity inherent in this crisis.
Armeniahas always been a prisoner of its geography, serving
throughout history as an arena for both competition and cooperation
for larger regional powers. Since its independence,Armenia’s
geographic vulnerability became only more pronounced, as
bothAzerbaijanandTurkeyclosed their borders withArmeniain a
demonstration of “fraternal allegiance” over the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict.
Over time, small, landlockedArmeniagenerally adapted to its isolation
by adopting economic and trade strategies aimed at overcoming the
constraints of having two of its four land borders sealed.
Nevertheless, the threat of isolation was never fully addressed,
andArmenia’s borders with bothGeorgiaandIran, as its primary export
and import route and as the only alternative trade and energy link
respectively, only grew in strategic significance.
Concerns and Challenges
Yet it isArmenia’s relationship with its southern borderIranthat
raises concerns and poses challenges. And as the West imposes ever
tighter sanctions against Iran and the threat of military action over
Iran’s nuclear programme mounts, so do the challenges to Armenia.
Only a few months ago, during a late-December 2011 meeting inYerevan,
Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian and his Iranian counterpart, Mahmud
Ahmadinejad, called for a “diplomatic” solution toIran’s nuclear
standoff with the West. As hosts, the Armenian side was careful to
placate Ahmadinejad during his one-day visit toYerevan, promising
expanded “high-level relations” and reiterating a commitment to “good
relations.” Similarly, in a joint statement, the presidents “noted
the right of all countries, includingArmeniaandIran, to the peaceful
use of atomic energy,” but stressed “the importance of resolvingIran’s
nuclear issue by means of negotiations and in diplomatic ways.”
But as tension between the West andIranhas deepened,Armeniais
increasingly concerned over renewed consideration of a possible US
or Israeli military attack targeting Iranian nuclear facilities.
Discussion of a possible military strike againstIranhas also grown
withinArmenia, fueled in part by Russian media coverage, leading many
inArmeniato worry about the country’s proximity toIran.
The Threat of Looming Attack against Iran
Fears of a looming military attack againstIranhave grown in recent
weeks, as Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that there is
“a wide global understanding thatIranmust be prevented from becoming
nuclear and no option should be taken off the table.” Going even
further, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon, who heads the
strategic affairs ministry and is a former Israeli military commander,
threatened thatIran’s nuclear installations are “vulnerable to military
strikes,” directly contradicting mainstream military skepticism over
the feasibility of air strikes. In response, however, US Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta recently downplayed reports suggesting the
“strong likelihood” that Israel was planning a military strike sometime
in the coming 2-4 months.
>From a military perspective, however, any such attack againstIranwould
most likely fail and may even be counter-productive. Militarily, the
fact that such an operation would target Iranian nuclear facilities
that are both widely dispersed throughout the country and deep
underground raise serious doubts over the success of any air campaign.
At the same time, even if an air campaign locates and neutralizes most
of its target list, many experts expect only a temporary setback to
an already entrenched nuclear programme.
A military operation would also be largely counter-productive
politically, for three main reasons. First, it would tend to only
embolden and even bolster a regime inTehranwhose very legitimacy is
limited to posing as a perceived victim of Western conspiracies and
aggression. Secondly, it would further weaken the already vulnerable,
but still significant portion of pro-American Iranians, and perhaps
even drive many Iranians to unite behind their government in the face
of open attack. A third factor is rooted in the likelihood that by
resorting to a military option, international support for diplomatic
pressure and sanctions would erode, especially as Russia and China
would most likely withdraw their support for the Western-designed
sanctions regime.
Conforming to Tighter Sanctions
For Armenia, which has been importing small amounts of Iranian natural
gas through a pipeline built in 2009, meeting the demands of tighter
sanctions is also a challenge, especially in light of current bilateral
energy ties and the roughly $300 million in annual bilateral trade. The
energy ties include the ongoing construction of a third electrical
transmission line connecting the Armenian and Iranian power grids
and the planned construction of two hydroelectric plants on the Arax
River dividing the Armenian-Iranian border. It would also complicate
ambitious Iranian plans to build a $2.5 billion, 540-kilometer railway
connectingIrantoArmenia.
And sanctions have been steadily tightening and broadening,
covering both more general areas of trade and economic sectors, as
well as targeting more specific groups withinIran, ranging from the
Iranian Central Bank to its Revolutionary Guards. The US Congress,
for example, follows this track, as the US Senate Banking Committee
recently approved a new package of proposed sanctions targetingIran’s
Revolutionary Guard Corps and companies involved in joint energy and
uranium mining ventures withTehran. It would also penalize companies
and individuals that supplyIranwith weapons that could be used against
Iranian citizens.
But this recent trend toward tighter sanction targeting Iranian
banking and financial services pose even more serious challenges
forArmenia, by imposing new demands for greater transparency and
higher scrutiny of Iranian banks currently operating inArmenia. It
would also trigger new, more serious complications over pending
and planned bilateral projects in the energy sector, in some ways
hindering the one sector that is rooted in a shared economic and
strategic interest betweenArmeniaandIran.
An Opportunity in Every Crisis
Despite these obvious challenges forArmenia, at the same time, there
is a potential opportunity from this crisis, however. In a broader
strategic context, this opportunity is rooted inArmenia’s role as
a potential “bridge” or “platform” for engagingIran. Reflecting a
shared sense of isolation and a pronounced perception of hostile
neighbours,ArmeniaandIranhave been both destined and determined to
forge a strategically stable relationship, no matter how unnatural
and contradictory.
Against this backdrop,ArmeniaisIran’s only neighbouring country that
could serve as a reliable mediator or trusted third-party broker,
hosting or even facilitating a new round of talks and diplomacy between
the West andIran. And for its part, affirming the new role of “small
states” in contributing to greater international security,Armeniaalso
stands to benefit from offering its own unique insight into how best
to engageIran. Only in this way, canArmeniatransform itself from being
less a prisoner of geography to more of a practitioner of geopolitics.
Richard Giragosian is the director of the Regional Studies
Center (RSC), an independent think tank in Yerevan, Armenia
([email protected])
From: A. Papazian