Farid Shafiyev: The drone attack on Nakhchivan was not accidental, it was a deliberate step

Farid Shafiyev, Chairman of the Board of the Center of Analysis of International Relations, commented on Iran’s drone attack against civilian infrastructure in Nakhchivan.

The Daily Baku presents the commentary:

“We can now reasonably conclude that the drone attack on Azerbaijan’s Nakhchivan region was a deliberate action carried out by Iran. It remains unclear whether the decision was taken in Tehran or by a lower level of command, however according to information circulating on unofficial accounts linked to the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps), it is likely that the decision was made by them.

There is no doubt that this incident was not accidental. The attacks were carried out not with a single drone but with several unmanned aerial vehicles targeting two sites in Nakhchivan – the international airport and a school.

In the same way, I do not believe that the missile attack against Türkiye was accidental either. That too was a deliberate step.

One may ask: why is Iran doing this? After all, Türkiye and Azerbaijan maintained a neutral position during this war as well as during last year’s war. Despite the wave of fake reports claiming that Azerbaijan allegedly assisted Israel last year in some way, it became clear that these claims were completely unfounded. Otherwise even Western sources that tend to show some sympathy toward Iran, including certain liberal media outlets such as the BBC, would have reported this with solid evidence.

Azerbaijan, which closed the stage of conflict with Armenia several years ago, is not interested in any conflict despite claims made by certain so called experts including radical Armenians in the diaspora, pro Iranian figures and others.

Türkiye is certainly aware of the unrest taking place in Iran and the potential consequences these processes may have for security and regional geopolitics. For this reason Ankara opposed this war.

So what is the reason? The problem is that we tend to approach this issue through the prism of conventional logic. Radical circles in Iran, however, think differently. Their logic often goes beyond the frameworks we consider rational.

It should also be noted that Iran even targeted Oman, which had made serious efforts to prevent the current war.

The explanation given by Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi actually shows that although Iran officially claims it does not target Muslim countries, it says it strikes objects that it considers connected to the United States. This means Tehran may regard certain facilities in neighboring countries including airports as linked to the United States.

Radical circles in Iran believe that through such actions they:

expand the conflict and cause damage to other countries
create dissatisfaction in those countries toward US and Israeli operations
openly challenge the world

There is an expression in Azerbaijani meaning “to challenge openly”. In Persian there is a similar phrase. This mentality reflects the psychology of certain individuals within the IRGC ranks who come from lower social strata and who may not possess the political sophistication or diplomatic thinking that one might expect.

Perhaps this also has certain regional characteristics. For example before the 2020 war some Armenian military commanders welcomed the approaching war and claimed they would drink tea in Baku on the shores of the Caspian Sea. Everyone knows how those claims ended. Armenia suffered a complete defeat on the battlefield.

What we are now observing is that even countries that play no role in the war are beginning to express critical positions toward Iran. If you watch the interview of Türkiye’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan you will see that he criticized Iran’s negotiation tactics quite harshly.

There is another point that may surprise you. While many people measure the success of negotiations by how quickly a result is achieved, Iranian negotiators often take pride in prolonging talks and delaying decision making. This is not only about the nuclear agreement. For example Iran has been dragging out negotiations with its political ally Russia for nearly twenty years regarding the North South transport corridor. Yet this project could bring economic benefits to all three countries involved Iran Russia and Azerbaijan. However Tehran sometimes slows the process not because of its own interests but because it considers the potential advantages Azerbaijan might gain from the project.

The same approach can also be seen regarding the ratification of the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea adopted in 2018. Iran still has not ratified the document.

For this reason when analyzing the situation one should temporarily set aside the Israel or United States factor. Many actions taken by those countries can certainly be criticized from the perspective of international law or humanitarian considerations.

Iran’s behavior needs to be analyzed through a specific analytical prism. This approach can also be seen in how Iran treats its own citizens. Although the country possesses some of the world’s largest energy resources, the population frequently faces shortages of water and electricity. In such circumstances it is entirely reasonable to ask to what extent this government will take into account the interests of its Muslim neighbors.”