Azerbaijan in the Crosshairs?

Moscow has more to worry about than the war in Ukraine. As winter approaches and the ground begins freezing, Putin is also facing new concerns to his east. In the central Asian state of Azerbaijan, there are mounting concerns about a potential border war with Iran after November protests in Tehran spread across the country and the Iranian government attempted to destabilize Azerbaijan. “We will do everything possible to defend our way of life as well as the secular direction of the development of Azerbaijan and of Azerbaijanis, including Azerbaijanis living in Iran. They are part of our nation,” announced President Ilham Aliyev. Salam New Agency reports that the president’s words were intended to win support at home for those Azerbaijani living abroad. Some politicians in Azerbaijan see their secular nation as a divided people, similar to the situation on the Korean peninsula. They are vocally pushing to rename the Republic of Azerbaijan, Northern Azerbaijan. One parliamentarian in Baku, Gudrat Gasanguliyav, argued that renaming the state would serve as a “stimulus” for those religious individuals living south of the Aras River. They account for about one-third of Iran’s population, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. Azerbaijanis in the south are increasing dissatisfied with the repressive regime in Iran.

Statements by politicians in Azerbaijan have lit a fuse in Tehran that could lead to a full-scale conflict that Putin might not be capable of stopping. The Russian publication Real Tribune reports that with heightened tensions between the two states, “the Kremlin is actively expanding shipping routes between Russia and Iran in the Caspian Sea to avoid having to rely on land routes that it once hoped could be used to circumvent Western sanctions,” notes Goble. He adds that it has “sparked fears in Tehran and elsewhere that either the Iranian authorities will try to use such language to gin up patriotic support in response to the current wave of protests or that the tit-for-tat moves by Iran and Azerbaijan along their common border may escalate into a full-scale military conflict.” It is an “indication of just how worried Moscow is about the current state of affairs,” notes Goble.

In Regnum.ru, one Russian commentator, Stanislav Tarasov, wrote that while these statements may not lead to any immediate war, they are likely to have potentially far-reaching consequences not only for Azerbaijani-Iranian relations but also for the relationship between Baku and Ankara, thus representing a seriously destabilizing development for the greater Middle East. Tarasov says it is evidence that Baku is working with Turkey to destroy Iran but that “the actual facts of the case may be far different and lead to Azerbaijan becoming more independent of Turkey with regards to regional geopolitics.”

Aliyev’s decision to “play ‘the Iranian card’” is part of Baku’s efforts to create a kind of Azerbaijani world rather than to extend the Turkic world eastward, according to Tarasov. In what could turn out to be a potential geopolitical culture war Azerbaijan, formerly part of Persia and not Turkey, is again part of a Persian empire. Goble says that if Baku focuses its efforts to the south rather than to the west, there could be a complete reordering of the Middle East chessboard.

There are still wider implications as President Aliyev’s words could prove even more threatening to Russia than any conflict between Azerbaijan and Iran. “This is because the Azerbaijani president’s statements suggest that Baku may now be interested not only in expanding its influence southward into Iran but also northward into Russia,” says Goble.

Last month in Baku, when Aliyev hosted Rustam Minnikhanov, the leader of the Republic of Tatarstan, he announced that “the Turkic world consists not only of independent Turkic states. Its geographic borders are much broader”—that is, it includes places such as Tatarstan, currently within Russia’s borders, and Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang), currently within the borders of the People’s Republic of China. This is the first such meeting between Tatarstan and Azerbaijani leaders since 2011. Goble suggests it is a sign that Baku is now looking to extend its influence deep into the Russian Federation.

While Turkish President Erdogan has “never publicly and directly declared that Iran must give up Southern Azerbaijan,” just as he has never made demands that China should “free Eastern Turkestan,” Russian commentator Dmitry Rodionov, such statements threaten Moscow’s control of Turkic areas within its borders and China’s control of its Turkic-majority areas. Goble argues that to the extent that this is true, Aliyev’s most recent statements about Iran, its minorities and the treatment of its population as a whole, appear likely to have a broader echo, potentially setting in motion events that could re-order not only the Middle East but the two largest countries in Eurasia as well. It is going to be a cold winter everywhere Putin turns this year.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]