Foreign ministers from Armenia and Azerbaijan spoke by telephone on March 5, just hours after Iran launched drone strikes on the Nakhchivan exclave, demonstrating the resilience of the tentative peace process between the longtime adversaries despite external disruption and regional instability.
The conversation between Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan and his Azerbaijani counterpart Jeyhun Bayramov, confirmed by both foreign ministries, focused on "recent developments in the region" and included mutual expressions of concern about escalating tensions. The ministers "noted the importance of refraining from actions that could further escalate tensions, emphasizing the need to ensure stability and security."
Peace process persists amid regional crisis
The direct ministerial communication represents a striking contrast to the decades of frozen conflict that preceded the 2020 war over Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan's 2023 military operation that ended Armenian control of the disputed territory. That the two countries' top diplomats would speak within hours of a major security crisis—even one not directly involving their bilateral relationship—suggests both sides view the emerging peace framework as worth preserving.
In the Caucasus, as across mountainous borderlands, ancient identities and modern geopolitics create intricate patterns of conflict and cooperation. The Armenian-Azerbaijani dialogue, fragile as it remains, now faces a test of whether it can withstand not only the weight of historical grievances but also the destabilizing effects of external actors pursuing their own regional agendas.
The timing of the Iranian strikes—coming amid ongoing Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations on a peace treaty, border delimitation, and the status of ethnic Armenians displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh—raises questions about Tehran's strategic calculus. Iran has historically maintained close ties with Armenia, in part as a counterweight to Turkish-Azerbaijani cooperation, and has expressed concern about Azerbaijani-Israeli military partnerships.
Regional dynamics complicate bilateral reconciliation
The statement from both foreign ministries that the ministers "noted with satisfaction the importance of sustainable peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan and exchanged views on matters of mutual interest" suggests a determination to compartmentalize the Iranian crisis from bilateral negotiations. This approach reflects the complex regional environment in which both Armenia and Azerbaijan must navigate relationships with multiple powers—Russia, Turkey, Iran, the European Union, and the United States—whose interests in the South Caucasus frequently conflict.
For Armenia, the Iranian strikes on Azerbaijan create a diplomatic dilemma. Yerevan has traditionally relied on Tehran as a source of economic connectivity and political support, particularly during periods of Turkish-Azerbaijani pressure. However, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's government has sought to reduce Armenia's dependence on both Russia and Iran while building relationships with Western countries and, more recently, exploring normalized relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Armenia's conspicuous silence on the Iranian attacks—neither condemning nor supporting them—reflects this delicate balancing act. Any public criticism of Iran would jeopardize an important relationship for a landlocked country with limited transit options, while endorsement would undermine the peace process with Azerbaijan and damage Armenia's efforts to position itself as a responsible regional actor in Western eyes.
Turkish factor shapes peace calculations
For Azerbaijan, the conversation with Armenia serves multiple purposes. By emphasizing the importance of regional stability and sustainable peace, Baku can present itself as a responsible actor pursuing de-escalation even while facing an external threat. This posture strengthens Azerbaijan's hand in garnering international support against Iranian aggression while continuing negotiations with Armenia that, if successful, would cement Azerbaijani gains from the 2020 war and 2023 operation.
The Turkey dimension remains crucial to both processes. Ankara's immediate security guarantee to Azerbaijan following the Iranian strikes demonstrates the depth of Turkish-Azerbaijani partnership, while Turkey's own normalization process with Armenia—currently stalled but not abandoned—provides an additional framework for regional de-escalation. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has indicated that Turkish-Armenian normalization and Azerbaijani-Armenian peace are linked, a position that gives Turkey influence over the pace and scope of Caucasus reconciliation.
Fragile progress faces external pressures
The ministerial call cannot obscure the profound challenges remaining in the Armenian-Azerbaijani relationship. Fundamental disagreements persist over the rights and security of ethnic Armenians who fled or were expelled from Nagorno-Karabakh, the delimitation of borders in contested areas, the opening of transport links, and the legacy of three decades of conflict. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev's continued use of anti-Armenian rhetoric, documented by regional monitoring organizations, fuels Armenian skepticism about the durability of any peace agreement.
Nevertheless, the fact that both governments prioritized direct communication at a moment of regional crisis suggests a mutual recognition that the alternative to negotiated peace—continued frozen conflict or renewed warfare—serves neither country's interests. The Iranian strikes on Nakhchivan demonstrate how external actors can destabilize the region, providing both Armenia and Azerbaijan with an additional incentive to resolve their bilateral disputes and reduce vulnerability to manipulation by outside powers.
In the Caucasus, where peace processes have historically been measured in decades rather than years, the Armenian-Azerbaijani ministerial call represents incremental progress. Whether this fragile dialogue can withstand the pressures of competing regional powers—each pursuing their own vision of South Caucasus order—remains the central question for a region where geography and history conspire to make local conflicts into international crises.
