Tehran’s cup of patience is full. Iran openly warns Armenia

The Iranian side sent an unprecedentedly open, direct and clear message to Nikol Pashinyan regarding the TRIPP project and Iran’s red lines. Ali Akbar Velayati, the former Foreign Minister of Iran, the former adviser on international affairs to the Supreme Leader of Iran, published an article in the Iranian periodical “Ettelaat” entitled “Open and honest with Mr. Prime Minister” addressed to Nikol Pashinyan.

According to “Purson” news website, he wrote in “Ethelaat” newspaper.

“As far as I know, during the long history of relations between Armenians and Iranians, such abnormal phenomena have never been recorded, during more than two thousand years of joint relations, from the time of the Parthians to the present day. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the formation of 15 independent republics, the relations of the Islamic Republic of Iran with all the republics formed on the ruins of the Soviet Union were friendly and normal, except when some of them showed unfriendly attitude.

During the so-called “velvet” (or “color”) revolution in 2018, following the example of some other republics, such as Kyrgyzstan and Georgia, Nikol Pashinyan tried to overthrow the former government of Armenia, which was closely cooperating with Moscow.

One of the harmful steps of Nikol Pashinyan’s new government was the deepening of the hostility between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which is now more acute than ever. However, recently Mr. Pashinyan has taken such steps that only cause division and problems for Armenia and do not give any other results.

All the negative actions directed against the interests of the Armenian people can be summed up in one word: deepening of following the policies of Western countries, especially France, USA and Great Britain. We are talking about the continuation of the liberal-democratic government, in which neither liberalism nor democracy is genuine. This behavior of Pashinyan, taking into account the complex background of his past, opens a new phase of hostility and tension in the South Caucasus.

During the last more than eight years, he has had secret and open contacts and negotiations with all those parties who are interested in maintaining or undermining security in the region and have ambitions for it. At present, its relations with Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkey, and probably in the future also with Georgia, are unstable and unpredictable.

His last step was to approve the baseless and reckless proposal of the man of many faces, Trump, to change the name of the Zangezur Corridor to “Trump Route” or “TRIPP”. During two separate meetings, once with the deputy minister of foreign affairs of that country, who arrived in Tehran, and another time with the ambassador of Armenia in Tehran, I clearly presented my views to them.

And those views were as follows. The Islamic Republic of Iran is aware of the problems faced by Russia regarding Ukraine. Therefore, Armenia may make a wrong calculation, thinking that since Russia is busy with the war in Ukraine, it will pay less attention to the security of the South Caucasus.

That is why I stated during the press conference that Iran, with or without Russia, considers itself responsible for maintaining the security of the South Caucasus. Just as from the time of Cyrus the Great until today, the Caucasus, up to Derbend in Dagestan, has been the protective zone of Iran’s security.

During the Astana Summit held in Tehran in the month of Khordad 1400 (May-June 2021), where I was fortunate enough to be present to pray to God for the sanctity of the martyred leader’s soul, His Holiness clearly stated during the meetings with Erdogan in the morning and Putin in the evening: “We are against the creation of Zangezur Corridor.” The strategic words of the martyred leader are a red line regarding foreign policy and the most important state issues of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

After the above two meetings, the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran organized very powerful military exercises. At that time, the martyred Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran visited the area of ​​operations to demonstrate Iran’s strength and determination. I clearly said my last words to the ambassador of Armenia. if Trump and his allies try to cross this red line of Iran, we will break their legs.

At the end of last week, the Armenian parliament approved the construction of this corridor. What does this step mean?

This fruitless step by Nikol Pashinyan and his followers is indeed an action that will become a shame for the noble people of Armenia, which has a long history of politically balanced and prudent behavior.”

Ali Akbar Velayati is one of the most experienced, influential and key figures in the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Holding the post of Iran’s Foreign Minister for 16 consecutive years from 1981 to 1997, he formed the foundations of the country’s modern diplomacy. Being a long-time senior adviser to the Supreme Leader of Iran on international affairs, a member of the Expediency Determination Council, as well as the chairman of the Board of Founders and Trustees of the Islamic Azad University, Velayati actually expresses the collective position of the top echelons of Iran’s state elite and security system.

In the political reality of Iran, where the Supreme Leader’s office has the ultimate authority to make fundamental foreign policy decisions, Velayati’s speech has the weight of an official-strategic message rather than an individual analysis.

His article published in the “Ettelaat” periodical is not a “leak” or a random statement. in diplomatic practice, when the official Ministry of Foreign Affairs maintains restraint, the representatives of the Supreme Leader’s office use more harsh and clear signals.

Velayati’s message to the Armenian authorities is a clear warning that Tehran considers the developments taking place in the South Caucasus within the immediate range of its national security. Emphasizing the “red lines”, the unacceptability of Syunik’s corridor logic and the dangers of the involvement of external (Western) forces, the senior Iranian official makes it clear that any violation of regional borders or geopolitical balance will be met with Tehran’s determined resistance, up to the readiness to use armed forces.

This harsh rhetoric proves that the numerous assurances of the Armenian side, diplomatic clarifications and the official statements of Yerevan regarding the consideration of Iran’s interests within the framework of the “Crossroads of Peace” project did not dispel Tehran’s concerns. The arguments of Armenian diplomacy were found to be insufficient for the Iranian side, which is why Tehran has to switch to tactics of direct and direct political pressure. This indicates a serious gap in strategic trust between Yerevan and Tehran, where the assurances of the Armenian side have been replaced by the ultimatums of the Iranian side.

The assurances within RA that they are responding to the concerns of the Iranian side are not particularly a problem, in fact, it is a trick, because behind closed doors, Iranian figures convey rather sharp messages during contacts at all possible levels, maintaining balance and restraint in the public sphere.

However, this long round of assurances did not actually produce any results. Therefore, Velayati’s article is not only a sharp criticism of Pashinyan’s foreign policy, but also records a new phase of tension in the history of Armenian-Iranian relations.

Tehran sends a clear signal that rapprochement with the West, possible concessions on TRIPP or attempts to bring foreign actors to the region are considered as steps against Iran’s security zone. For the Armenian authorities, this is a serious impulse to revise their calculations, because the deterioration of relations with neighboring Iran can have very serious consequences, making Armenia’s security and geopolitical positions in the region even more vulnerable.