The Middle East has always been one of the hottest regions in the entire world, but recent direct tensions between Iran and Israel have made the region even more tense. The recent rocket attacks from Iran towards Israel have exacerbated the situation, highlighting significant friction between both parties. This is not merely about saving face for Tehran or Tel Aviv; both countries continue to threaten each other by releasing lists of potential targets for annihilation and bombing. Such actions could potentially lead to a larger-scale war, though this outcome seemed still avoidable days before.
Israeli land operations in Lebanon and Iran’s rocket responses have brought the region closer to full-scale war, as Israel has stated it will respond to Iranian rocket attacks. In turn, Iran threatens to escalate its rocket fire if necessary, potentially setting off a lasting cycle of conflict. These attacks are shutting down all avenues for negotiation among Iran, Israel, Lebanon, and other regional players, leaving very small windows for other countries to mediate.
Without a doubt, the Middle Eastern issue holds a significant importance in Washington, especially during the election period. Notably, the situation was the first question posed to both candidates during the vice presidential debate that took place hours after the Iranian rocket attack. The Biden administration asserts that the US is prepared to support Israel’s self-defense while carefully avoiding actions that could jeopardize the presidential campaign. In contrast, the Republicans and Trump openly support Israel and criticize Democrats for not taking a tougher stance on Iran and failing to adequately protect Israel. The US appears to avoid direct involvement in a potential conflict between Israel and Iran. While Israel will receive necessary assistance, it is unlikely that the US will deploy troops against Iran.
Escalation between Iran and Israel could directly affect the South Caucasus region. Azerbaijan’s interest in implementing the so-called “Zangezur corridor” could be heightened if Iran’s position weakens due to a full-scale war with Israel and its allies, potentially allowing Azerbaijan to launch operations against Armenian territory. If Iran is preoccupied with Israel, Azerbaijan might trigger another attack on Armenia, crossing a significant red line that Tehran will not tolerate, compelling a strong Iranian response to any attempts to establish the “Zangezur corridor.” Such a response may prompt Turkey, as Azerbaijan’s ally, to take action, although it remains unclear whether Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will fully engage against Iran. Erdogan had pledged to oppose Israel if it attacked Lebanon, yet Turkey has remained silent since Israel’s actions there. Israel may benefit from opening another front against Iran to exert pressure on it from multiple directions as part of its military strategy. However, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev must tread carefully, as Turkey’s support could be unexpectedly late, similar to the situation in Lebanon.
Armenia appears to be in a challenging position, as Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan frequently assert that Azerbaijan is unwilling to engage in the peace process and is seeking to evade peace treaty commitments. They contend that Azerbaijan is instead pursuing military action against Armenia. These statements seem aimed at preparing the Armenian public for the possibility of war or unilateral concessions. Armenia should ideally be prepared to defend its territory by any means necessary; however, the leadership has consistently lost to Azerbaijan in past wars and military campaigns, with this trend since the 2020 conflict likely continuing.
