Israel's barrage of Iran is furious. Azerbaijan, to Iran's north, is treading lightly.

This article was originally published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and is reprinted with permission.
Azerbaijan's president stood before cameras of the state TV broadcaster, grinning alongside an Israeli attack drone newly acquired for his country's growing arsenals.
Ilham Aliyev then petted it like a dog.
The Israeli unmanned aircraft was part of an extensive fleet of Israeli and Turkish-built drones that Aliyev's military used to devastating effect against Armenia in its successful campaign to regain control of the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The weapon is a small but notable reflection of Azerbaijan's quiet, long-standing — and significant– relations with Israel.
Israel's furious, unprecedented barrage targeting Iranian nuclear and missile sites threatens to destabilize Tehran's government. Along with Iran's retaliatory missile attacks, the violence also threatens to possibly spark a wider war in the Middle East.
In the midst of all this, Baku is trying to thread a very small needle.
'Aliyev needs to stay on the good side of both Israel — a continued supplier of sophisticated weapons to the Azerbaijani armed forces and a market for Azerbaijani oil — and Tehran [due to] Iran's ability to play Armenia and Azerbaijan off against each other,' said Richard Kauzlarich, who served as US ambassador to Azerbaijan in the late 1990s.
'Azerbaijan has no interest in a war with Iran and does not support Israeli strikes on Iranian territory,' said Zaur Shiriyev, an expert on the South Caucasus at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. 'Azerbaijan made its position clear that it is not part of this conflict.'
Aliyev has said nothing publicly.
Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry issued a statement on June 13 — the day Israel started its campaign — saying Baku was 'seriously concerned' about the attacks.
'We strongly condemn the escalation of the situation and urge the parties to resolve the existing disagreements only through dialogue and diplomatic means in accordance with the norms and principles of international law.'
The next day, the ministry said Foreign Minister Ceyhun Bayramov had spoken with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araqchi, and reassured him that Azerbaijan would not allow its territory to be used for attacks against Tehran.
Bayramov later spoke with Britain's foreign secretary, expressing 'serious concern about the security situation in the region as a result of the Israeli-Iranian conflict.'
Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry did not respond to e-mails seeking further comment.
Azerbaijan's ties with Tehran are a mixed bag.
Iran is overwhelmingly Shi'ite Muslim. Shi'ites dominate in Azerbaijan as well, though there is also a substantial Sunni population. The country is officially secular and religion plays a small role in public life.
Inside Iran, ethnic Azeris are the second-largest minority after the Fars, or Persians, a fact that occasionally worries the government in Tehran. Some estimates place Iran's ethnic Azeri population as larger than Azerbaijan's entire population.
The northwestern city of Tabriz, which has been hit by Israeli strikes, is home to many of Iran's ethnic Azeris.
Also thrown into the mix is Iran's economic ties with Armenia, with whom Azerbaijan has fought two wars in the past 35 years over Nagorno-Karabakh.
Isolated by Azerbaijan's strongest ally, Turkey, Armenia currently has only two land border crossings: one with Georgia to the north, and one with Iran. With Tehran isolated by international sanctions, Armenia is an important outlet for Iranian exports to wider markets.
With support from Turkey, Azerbaijan is angling to create a transport corridor across Armenian territory that would link up Azerbaijan and an Azerbaijani exclave to the west called Naxcivan. That would impede Iranian-Armenian trade, which would have to cross what's called the Zangezur corridor.
And then there's Israel.
Since first cultivating ties in the 1990s, Azerbaijan has become a major source of oil for Israel, supplying more than half of its imports.
Israel, meanwhile, has become a major supplier of weaponry to Azerbaijan, which Baku has relied heavily on as it rebuilt its armed forces after disastrous losses during the first Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the early 1990s.
Between 2016 and 2021, Israel was the source for 69 percent of Baku's weapons imports, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
That includes missiles as well as sophisticated drones like the Harop 'loitering munition' drone, which Aliyev showed off in October 2021, or models like the Orbiter surveillance drones, which scoop up radio signals and other electronic data.
Two years later, Azerbaijan took full control of Nagorno-Karabakh, forcing out most of its ethnic Armenians.
The relationship is 'strong and mutually beneficial,' Kauzlarich said, 'based on perceptions in Baku that Israel will remain a supplier of arms in its ongoing conflict with Armenia and in Jerusalem that Azerbaijan supports Israeli objectives in Iran.'
Tehran has long had concerns that Israel could use its relationship with Azerbaijan for covert, or overt, action against Iran.
In an opinion piece published in 2006, a retired Israel Defense Forces general called for coordinating with Azerbaijan on the use of its air bases.
Iran's fears were stoked further by US diplomatic cables that were leaked and published by the anti-secrecy group Wikileaks. One cable reportedly described a deep, secret relationship between Israel and Azerbaijan, prompting loud pushback from Azerbaijani diplomats.
In 2012, Azerbaijani police announced that they had arrested several people linked to Iranian intelligence who were allegedly plotting attacks on Israelis in the country.
Tehran accused of Baku of helping Israel to target Iranian nuclear scientists.
'Whenever tensions rise between Israel and Iran, there is a long-standing narrative, mostly pushed from outside, that Azerbaijan might open its airspace or provide support to Israel,' Shiriyev said. 'That has never been true. Today, with advanced airpower and drones, Israel does not rely on foreign refueling or nearby airbases.'
In its current campaign to pummel Iran and its weapons programs, Israel is likely counting on Azerbaijan's moral rather than military support, said Efraim Halevy, the former head of the Israeli spy agency Mossad.
'If there will be a war… we do not wish to involve [Azerbaijan] in military activities which would cause loss of life and/or place Azerbaijan in a difficult position,' he said in an interview with RFE/RL's Azerbaijani Service last year.
'What we do hope is to get moral support from [Azerbaijan], to get from you support expressing your views on Iran and the way Iran is behaving, and to give us a clear view of Azerbaijani foreign policy concerning Iran,' he said. 'That I think, is what we expect of Azerbaijan, and I think it is in the interest of Azerbaijan to accept this.'
'Is Baku trying to stay out of a major war on its southern border?' Shiriyev said. 'Yes, but that is not simple.'
'Even if Azerbaijan avoids direct involvement, it could still face consequences, including refugee flows, trade disruptions, and logistical problem,' he said.
'If the conflict deepens, or if the Iranian regime collapses entirely, the result could be serious instability across the region. Iran is not Syria or Iraq. It is much closer, and its size means that any fallout would be felt across the South Caucasus. Azerbaijan, like other neighbors, would likely be among the first to feel the pressure,' Shiriyev added.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New York Times

28 minutes ago

• New York Times

U.S. Officials Concede They Don't Know Whereabouts of Iran's Uranium Stockpile

A day after President Trump declared that Iran's nuclear program had been 'completely and totally obliterated' by American bunker-busting bombs and a barrage of missiles, the actual state of the program seemed far more murky, with senior officials conceding they did not know the whereabouts of Iran's stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium. 'We are going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel and that's one of the things that we're going to have conversations with the Iranians about,' Vice President JD Vance told ABC's 'This Week' on Sunday, referring to a batch of uranium sufficient to make nine or ten atomic weapons. Nonetheless, he contented that the country's potential to build a weapon had been set back substantially because it no longer had the equipment to turn that fuel into operative weapons. In a briefing for reporters on Sunday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, Dan Caine, avoided Mr. Trump's maximalist claims of success. They said an initial battle-damage assessment of all three sites struck by Air Force B-2 bombers and Navy Tomahawk missiles showed 'severe damage and destruction.' Satellite photographs of the primary target, the Fordo uranium enrichment plant that Iran built under a mountain, showed several holes where a dozen 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators — one of the largest conventional bombs in the U.S. arsenal — punched deep holes in the rock. The Israeli military's initial analysis concluded that the site, the target of American and Israeli military planners for more than 26 years, sustained serious damage from the strike but had not been completely destroyed. But there was also evidence, according to two Israeli officials with knowledge of the intelligence, that Iran had moved equipment and uranium from the site in recent days. And there was growing evidence that the Iranians, attuned to Mr. Trump's repeated threats to take military action, had removed 400 kilograms, or roughly 880 pounds, of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity. That is just below the 90 percent that is usually used in nuclear weapons. Rafael Mariano Grossi, the director of general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said by text that the fuel had last been seen by his teams of United Nations inspectors about a week before Israel began its attacks on Iran. But he said on CNN that 'Iran has made no secret that they have protected this material.' Asked by text later in the day whether he meant that the fuel stockpile — which is stored in special casks small enough to fit in the trunks of about 10 cars — had been moved, he replied, 'I do.'

Politico

31 minutes ago

• Politico

Trump floats regime change in Iran after US strikes nuclear sites, muddying the administration's message

President Donald Trump's top national security officials spent much of Sunday insisting his administration doesn't want to bring about the end of Iran's government, only its nuclear program. Then Trump left the door open for exactly that. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. While Trump did not call for the ouster of the regime, or say that the U.S. would play any role in overthrowing the Iranian government, his words undercut what had appeared to be a coordinated message from his top advisers. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth each insisted Sunday that the U.S. was only interested in dismantling Iran's nuclear capabilities. 'We don't want to achieve regime change. We want to achieve the end of the Iranian nuclear program,' Vance told ABC. 'That's what the president set us out to do.' The others also focused their statements around the idea that the strikes were limited and focused solely on Iran's nuclear program. The conflicting tones highlight the difficulty the Trump administration faces as it tries to navigate the fallout — both domestically and abroad — of its massive strike on Iran. Officials want to convince Tehran to keep its response limited, and mollify the factions of the MAGA base that didn't want the U.S. to launch the strikes. But Trump's post makes clear the sense inside the administration that this all may end with the Iranian government toppled. Rubio was the first to flag the possibility on Sunday. While he reiterated that toppling Iran's theocratic republic was not the goal of the strikes, he said that if the country remained committed to becoming a nuclear power, it could imperil the survival of the regime. 'I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that,' Rubio said, speaking on Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures. Trump's willingness to consider regime change is likely to stoke divisions inside his party. So far, many of Trump's supporters, many of whom had opposed attacking Iran, have rallied around him, cheering the strike as a limited action, but there were already signs of dissension before his social media post. In a lengthy post on X, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said she is 'sick of' American participation in foreign wars and feared the knock on effects. 'American troops have been killed and forever torn apart physically and mentally for regime change, foreign wars, and for military industrial base profits,' she said. Vance was seen as the leader of the GOP's anti-war faction before he endorsed Trump's approach this week. Vance said in a separate interview Sunday that the U.S. sees a path toward speaking with Iran's current government and integrating it into the international community if it pledges to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons.. 'We want to end their nuclear program, and then we want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here,' he said on NBC's Meet the Press. Though it will take days to assess the full effect of American strikes, Iran has already vowed to retaliate. The country's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday that the U.S. 'crossed a very big red line' and that it was not the time for diplomacy. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long publicly flirted with Iranian regime change, saying that changing Iran's government is not the goal of Israeli operations but could be an effect as the country is weakened. Inside the administration, Trump and his team still feel confident they can keep the response from spilling into something larger. 'Trump believes he can do this without regime change, and if anyone can, it's going to be him,' a U.S. official said before Trump's social media post, granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking. Victoria Coates, former deputy national security adviser in Trump's first term and vice president at the Heritage Foundation, said 'the big question' will be whether he can keep the party together but that the initial signs are positive — including Vance's support. 'He is taking the role of asking some tough questions that need to be asked, but if he's satisfied — as clearly he was about the Iran operation — he's going to get on board and support the president, because that's what his job is,' she said. 'It indicates to me that the vast majority of the party is going to come together here — there's always going to be some outliers.' Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca.), said the U.S. has learned lessons from past entanglements and like others in his party tried to differentiate Trump's decision from other American wars in the Middle East. 'All of us understand that…you do not go into a country of nearly 90 million people and think that you're going to get out quickly,' Issa said on Fox News. 'The president is not trying to do regime change and made that clear. He is trying to change the regime's way of doing business.' Former Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Trump ally, said the president is trying to frame the strikes on Iran as similar to his move in his first term to direct the killing of the then top Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, 'which wasn't about regime change.' 'Israel wants regime change,' he wrote on X. 'The only off-ramp now is that Trump might have to (once again) restrain Israel.' Few within the Republican party have publicly come out in favor of overthrowing Iran's government or backing Israel in doing so. Still, Trump last week mused publicly about killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And there are Republican hawks pushing to seize the opportunity to topple the government in Tehran. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a hawkish voice in the party, said on Meet the Press Sunday that Israel should have tried to topple Iran's government 'a long time ago.' Graham said he spoke Sunday with Netanyahu, who told Graham, 'this regime is not going to be tolerated by Israel.' After Trump's post, Graham said on X, 'President Trump is spot on with his desire to make Iran great again by changing the regime either through their behavior or new leadership.' Hegseth said on Sunday that the U.S. had delivered messages publicly and privately to Iran, adding that the regime understands 'precisely' the administration's position. In hailing the operation as a success at a Pentagon press conference, Hegseth underscored that the goal of the attack 'has not been about regime change' and pledged that the U.S. effort in Iran would not be 'open-ended,' batting away any comparisons to the long running American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that Trump campaigned against. 'Anything can happen in conflict, we acknowledge that,' Hegseth told reporters. 'But the scope of this was intentionally limited. That's the message that we're sending.' Another longtime GOP national security official with ties to some of the party's more hawkish figures suggested that Iran's military options are 'severely degraded' and that escalation should concern Tehran far more than it would the White House. 'The idea should terrify Khamenei,' said the official, who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. But if Iran were to retaliate, Trump, as he first teased in his remarks from the White House Saturday evening, could go further. Eli Stokols, Connor O'Brien and Joe Gould contributed to this report.

Atlantic

34 minutes ago

• Atlantic

Trump Changed. The Intelligence Didn't.

Whenever Donald Trump has contemplated confrontation with Iran, his decisions have been guided less by the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community than by his own calculation of risk and reward. At times he has pulled the trigger. At times he has backed down. All the while, the U.S. assessment of Iranian nuclear intentions has stayed remarkably consistent. Now, Trump has gone all in. His decision this week to drop more than a dozen of the largest conventional bombs in the U.S. arsenal on key Iranian nuclear facilities was based, he has said, on his belief that Iran is close to being able to make the ultimate weapon. That's not exactly what his intelligence agencies have concluded. Their official, publicly stated assessment of Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions is that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei suspended the country's nuclear weapons program in 2003, the year that the United States invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein in order to seize his supposed weapons of mass destruction. Those turned out not to exist. But Iran's leaders reasonably feared the United States might next turn its sights on their country and its very real weapons program. Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence and (on paper at least) Trump's senior intelligence adviser, reiterated the consensus view in congressional testimony this March. But she also noted that Iran had built up its largest-ever stockpile of enriched uranium, the core ingredient of a weapon, in a manner that was 'unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.' Her brief remark escaped much scrutiny, but turns out to have been telling. In recent briefings with Trump, CIA Director John Ratcliffe has laid out what the intelligence agencies know, particularly about Iran's uranium stockpiles, and said it was clear Iran was trying to build a nuclear weapon, according to officials familiar with his presentation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. On its face, that appears to contradict the long-standing intelligence community position. But Ratcliffe's analysis is actually a more nuanced reading of the available information. In a separate briefing for lawmakers last week, Ratcliffe used a football analogy to describe Iran's ambitions. If a team had gone 99 yards down the field, their intention was obviously to score a touchdown, not stop at the one-yard line, he said. International experts agree that Iran has enriched uranium to a point that is close to weapons grade, a fact that Vice President J.D. Vance has emphasized in his own public remarks. Senior administration officials take little comfort in Khameini's decades-old halt to the nuclear weapons program. Trump believes Iran is actively pursuing everything it would need to build a weapon, and in relatively short order, if the supreme leader gave the go-ahead. That's the real threat, and the reason Trump gave the order to strike now, officials told me. It also helps that Israel has helped pave the way. Trump's thinking is in line with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has said that Iran may have been months or mere weeks away from building a weapon, and has generally taken the view that the country's leaders are stockpiling uranium precisely for that purpose. In the week leading up to the U.S. strike-–which Israeli leaders appear not to have known about in advance-–the Israeli air force pummeled nuclear facilities, killed nuclear scientists and experts, and degraded Iranian air defenses. The Israeli attacks, like the American ones, appear to have been largely driven by a sense of opportunity, after Israel previously weakened the regime and neutralized its longtime proxy forces in the region. There is no reason to think that the Trump administration, or Israel, suddenly had some new window into Khamieni's brain. But the president took an intuitive view of the intelligence the United States has long possessed, and a fateful set of actions based on it. It's too pat to say that Trump has ignored his intelligence advisers, although he certainly created that impression. 'Well then my intelligence community is wrong,' he said earlier in the week when a reporter noted that the agencies had found no evidence that Iran was trying to build a weapon. Trump had previously said Gabbard was also wrong when she testified earlier this year. Officials have told me that they're not just concerned about Iran's ability to build a warhead that could be placed atop a ballistic missile—a complex process that would require Iran to build a device that could survive reentry into earth's atmosphere and land precisely on its target. The regime could construct a simpler device and hand it over to a third party. In an interview last month with a state-linked news outlet, Fereydoon Abbasi-Davani, a leading Iranian nuclear scientist and the former head of the country's Atomic Energy Organization, warned that Iran could use nuclear weapons against the United States, Great Britain, and Israel without deploying them on missiles or an aircraft. 'What if they are attacked from within?' he asked, an unsubtle suggestion that Iran could give a nuclear weapon to one of its proxies. Israel was apparently listening and thought that Abbassi-Davani might possess the know-how to make such a device. He was killed earlier this month in an Israeli air strike. Democratic lawmakers and Trump's critics are sure to press for more information on when and how the president came to his decision. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut told my colleague Issac Stanely-Becker on Saturday that he was briefed last week on the intelligence. It ' was clear to me that Iran did not pose an imminent threat, that they are not on the verge of being able to obtain a nuclear weapon that could pose a real threat to neighbors and that negotiations were ongoing and certainly not at their endpoints,' Murphy said. On Saturday morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth briefed reporters about the U.S. operation and was asked if new information had persuaded Trump to act. Hegseth declined to share many details about Trump's decision-making, but he allowed that, "the president has made it very clear [that] he's looked at all of this, all of the intelligence, all the information, and come to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear program is a threat, and was willing to take this precision operation to neutralize that threat.' Ultimately, Trump's decision to bomb Iran had little to do with any sudden change in intelligence assessments. The choice to use military force was a judgment call, and now, it's his to own.