Developments surrounding Iran and its continuing confrontation with the United States remain among the principal factors affecting security in the South Caucasus and wider regional processes. Regional affairs expert and Orientalist Armen Petrosyan made this assessment while commenting on the current situation around Iran.
According to him, there is currently no basis for claiming that the confrontation between Washington and Tehran is approaching a final settlement. Although the ceasefire remains in effect and neither side has officially withdrawn from the existing arrangements, military tensions continue.
Petrosyan drew a parallel with the trilateral statement of November 9, 2020. In both cases, he said, individual provisions continue to be violated and the sides accuse one another of failing to honor their commitments, but neither formally announces its withdrawal from the agreements.
In his view, the central problem is not merely the current situation but the absence of any clear scenario for ending the US-Iran conflict.
“As long as there is no understandable path toward resolving the conflict, it is impossible to make long-term forecasts,” he said.
Military Escalation Remains the Main Threat
According to Petrosyan, the worst-case scenario would be a full return of the conflict between the United States and Iran to the military sphere, followed by prolonged reciprocal strikes.
Under such conditions, Iran could target the territories of countries where Tehran believes an American military presence or related infrastructure exists.
Such a development could significantly expand the geographical scope of the confrontation and directly affect states that are not formally parties to the conflict.
This scenario would pose a particular risk to the South Caucasus because the region borders Iran and is increasingly involved in international transport, energy and infrastructure projects, some of which are connected to the United States.
Divisions Between Iran’s Political and Military Elites Are Deepening
Petrosyan believes internal political developments in Iran are also having a significant impact on the situation.
According to him, serious disagreements between Iran’s political leadership and its military elite, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, are becoming increasingly visible.
He argues that the IRGC effectively controls much of the situation on the ground and has substantial influence over the course of the confrontation with the United States.
The military establishment’s positions, however, do not always coincide with those of Iran’s political leadership.
This internal fragmentation makes Tehran’s behavior more difficult to predict because official statements from political authorities do not necessarily reveal what decisions may be taken by institutions that directly control military and security instruments.
Iran’s Internal Disagreements Also Complicate Relations With Its Partners
Petrosyan notes that tensions within Iran’s governing system create additional challenges for countries that maintain close relations with Tehran.
Armenian officials traditionally communicate primarily with their political counterparts in Iran. Under current conditions, however, engagement at the political level alone may no longer be sufficient.
The expert believes Armenia should also establish effective channels of communication with representatives of Iran’s military system because many decisions with a decisive impact on the conflict are made or implemented within those circles.
This is particularly important given the proximity of the Armenian-Iranian border and the potential impact of renewed military escalation on Armenia’s security, economy and transport communications.
A Diplomatic Transition Is Essential for Stability
Petrosyan says the situation remains manageable for now.
Nevertheless, the future of the US-Iran conflict continues to be one of the most important sources of uncertainty for the region.
In his assessment, further developments will depend primarily on whether the confrontation can move from the military sphere to political and diplomatic negotiations.
If that transition does not take place, the risks of renewed hostilities, an expanding strike zone and the involvement of neighboring states will remain.