Day: July 2, 2025

The South Caucasus has undergone profound changes after Azerbaijan’s victory in the Second Karabakh War in 2020. The restoration of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity paved the way for a new regional order—one built on transport connectivity, energy corridors and long-awaited peace.

But as new realities take root, old ambitions resurface. In this evolving landscape, the unusually proactive presence of Iran’s ambassador to Armenia, Mehdi Sobhani, is raising eyebrows, especially after Israel concluded its war in Tehran. While publicly operating under a diplomatic mandate, the ambassador’s actions suggest a broader, more calculated agenda behind closed doors, one that poses a threat to Azerbaijan’s and Israel’s interests in the Caucasus.

Iranian officials stress the “historical ties” and “brotherly relations” between Iran and Azerbaijan. Yet, the words spoken in press statements are increasingly inconsistent with the behavior of Tehran’s envoy in Armenia, especially following the recent war between Israel and Iran, with Iranian accusations surfacing that Israel utilized Azerbaijani airspace to attack Iran.

In the wake of these recent developments, Sobhani’s recent conduct reveals an approach that leans far from neutrality:

• Strong, repeated opposition to the proposed Zangezur Corridor, calling it a threat to Iran’s national security;
• Frequent and highly visible visits to Armenian military installations and border zones, unusual for a diplomat;
• Subtle but clear criticism of Azerbaijan’s regional policies, voiced through Armenian media platforms.

These are not the actions of a traditional ambassador. They are the moves of a geopolitical actor working to shift the balance of power in Iran’s favor.

Iran’s engagement with Armenia has deepened significantly over the past two years. What began as diplomatic rhetoric has evolved into tangible cooperation across multiple domains, which include:

• Energy diplomacy: Iran-Armenia gas projects aim to reduce Armenia’s dependency on other suppliers and challenge Azerbaijan’s energy influence.
• Transport corridors: Tehran has pushed for an India–Iran–Armenia route that would bypass Azerbaijan entirely, undermining the strategic importance of the Zangezur Corridor.
• Military contacts: Increasingly frequent and publicized cooperation with Armenian defense officials raises concerns about covert arms coordination or intelligence-sharing.

In this context, Sobhani appears to be executing a playbook designed in Tehran—one that positions Armenia as a wedge against Azerbaijan and its close ally, Israel.

From Baku’s perspective, the Iranian envoy’s behavior is not only undiplomatic but potentially destabilizing. Several red flags have emerged:

• Open and tacit support for Armenian revanchist narratives that reject the post-war regional settlement;
• Public statements that interfere with Azerbaijan’s internal affairs, including commentary on border security and ethnic composition;
• A subtle campaign to hinder the peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which Tehran likely sees as a threat to its regional leverage.

While Iran may claim neutrality, its behavior on the ground, particularly through its embassy in Armenia’s capital of Yerevan, suggests otherwise. Iran’s growing discomfort with Israel’s military cooperation with Azerbaijan is no secret. From Tehran’s perspective, Baku’s ties with Jerusalem present a strategic dilemma.

In this light, Armenia offers an attractive counterbalance: a willing partner with its own grievances against Israel, and a geopolitical foothold just north of Iran’s borders. Some regional observers believe Iran is positioning Armenia as a proxy platform, not only to pressure Azerbaijan, but also to indirectly counter Israeli influence in the South Caucasus.

Sobhani, with his assertive and increasingly unorthodox conduct, may be at the heart of this realignment.

Thus, Iran’s ambassador in Yerevan is more than a diplomat. His actions reveal a deliberate strategy to challenge Azerbaijan’s growing influence, disrupt regional integration efforts and reshape alliances to Tehran’s advantage.

Azerbaijan remains committed to peace, stability and cooperation; however, it is under no illusion about the geopolitical currents flowing just beyond its western borders. The silent diplomacy of Iran must be scrutinized and its true intentions laid bare. If diplomacy is truly the art of subtle influence, then Iran’s ambassador has become a quiet master of disruption.

Ayoob Kara served as Israel’s minister of communications.

Source