Israel’s strategic partnership with Azerbaijan has been central to its foreign policy in the South Caucasus. However, Azerbaijan is seemingly planning more aggression against Armenia, which is not in Israel’s interest. As people who closely follow events in the region, we humbly urge Israel to discourage its ally from making a terrible mistake.
The regime in Baku sells oil to Israel, buys Israeli weapons, and offers a forward base for monitoring and countering Iran. It is not a pretty deal – as the regime of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev is currently one of the world’s most dictatorial – but it has been a case of perhaps understandable realpolitik.
For Azerbaijan, this alliance proved invaluable during its conflict with the autonomous Armenian-populated enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, where Israeli weapons were allegedly used in operations that resulted in a decisive Azerbaijani victory and the ethnic cleansing of 120,000 Armenians in September 2023.
Recently, Azerbaijan has shown its ambitions extend to sovereign territory in Armenia: the seizure of the so-called Zangezur corridor in southern Armenia, in the region of Syunik.
Controlling this corridor would create a land bridge to Azerbaijan’s ally, Turkey, in turn boosting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ambitions, which, along with his flirtations with Russia, are badly out of sync with that country’s obligations as a NATO member.
The dangers of plans for an attack have been flagged for weeks by security and policy experts in Europe, and a major sign came earlier this month in an interview with Aliyev.
Using terminology reminiscent of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s before he attacked Ukraine, Aliyev accused Armenia of having a “fascist ideology” for 30 years and being a “threat to the region.” Aliyev argued that “fascism must be destroyed… It will be destroyed either by the Armenian leadership or by us. We have no other choice.”
An Azerbaijani attack on Armenia would be an aggression that Israel should not aid or abet.
That would not mean that Israel is abandoning its alliance with Azerbaijan, but rather, it would be advising it to avoid an overreach that could backfire badly.
Such a move against Armenia would not merely be an extension of Aliyev’s territorial consolidation. It would violate the sovereignty of Armenia, a nascent democracy, and fundamentally alter the regional balance in a way that directly benefits Turkey.
By linking Turkey with Azerbaijan and Central Asia, this corridor would extend Turkish influence across the region. Considering Turkey may have a huge influence over the new regime in Syria, this Turkish zone would reach all the way from central Asia to the Golan border.
Turkey, under Erdogan, has increasingly acted as a rogue NATO member, pursuing expansionist ambitions under the guise of counterterrorism and stability. Erdogan’s support for Islamist militias in Syria has entrenched Turkey’s influence there, particularly in the northwest. Through these proxies, Ankara displaced Kurdish populations, undermined Kurdish autonomy, and strengthened extremist factions, all while avoiding direct military confrontation.
Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman vision is not limited to Syria. During the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, Turkey airlifted Syrian mercenaries to fight alongside Azerbaijani forces, a tactic that demonstrates Ankara’s use of Islamist militias as instruments of foreign policy.
And that foreign policy is clearly hostile to Israel. Erdogan’s robust support for Hamas and his ambiguous threats toward Israel – he alluded to the possibility of invading – highlight the dangers of empowering Ankara further.
Destabilizing Armenia
ARMENIA, MEANWHILE, is a fledgling democracy attempting to pivot away from Russian dependency and move toward the West. An attempt to seize the Zangezur corridor threatens to destabilize this trajectory, pushing Armenia back into Moscow’s orbit and boosting anti-Western forces within the country – another development that Israel should not necessarily welcome.
The loss of this corridor would also devastate Armenia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, signaling to other authoritarian regimes that aggression against weaker neighbors will go unchecked.
Turkey’s behavior here – and its fence-sitting on the Russia-Ukraine war – underscores its divergence from NATO principles and values. Erdogan’s purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems, defiance of Western sanctions on Moscow, and aggressive actions in the Eastern Mediterranean are just a few examples of Ankara’s undermining of NATO cohesion.
Turkey’s actions also challenge US interests in the region. Erdogan’s escalating rhetoric against Syrian Kurds, who are critical US allies in the fight against ISIS, and his alignment with Azerbaijan further risk destabilizing an already volatile region.
Moreover, Erdogan’s reliance on Islamist militias and his imperialistic vision clash with Western efforts to promote democratic governance and stability in the Middle East and Central Asia. A seizure of the Zangezur corridor would embolden Turkey and create new challenges for NATO, the United States, and regional actors like Israel.
The Zangezur corridor also holds strategic importance for Iranians, providing a critical route to Armenia for trade, travel, and cultural exchange. While cutting Iran off from Armenia may seem advantageous to some, the Islamic Republic of Iran is unlikely to last forever. A more moderate Iranian government in the future will probably seek reintegration into the global community, and access to Armenia could be important.
For the United States and NATO, this is an opportunity to reassert core values and impose consequences on Turkey for its rogue behavior. For US President Donald Trump, it is also a chance to act decisively in a region where president Joe Biden projected weakness.
Just as the US under Biden did little to stop Yemen’s Houthis from disrupting global maritime trade with their attacks on ships headed to Egypt’s Suez Canal, so too has it allowed Aliyev to run riot and Erdogan to attack the US-allied Kurds in Syria. A move toward a peaceful settlement is also in the incoming administration’s interest.
As for Israel, supporting the Zangezur corridor’s seizure in any way would cross a dangerous line. Israel should oppose this move, balancing its strategic alliance with Azerbaijan while taking a principled stand against Turkish overreach. With Trump handling Ankara and Israel engaging Baku, folly might be avoided.
Dan Perry is the former chief editor of the Associated Press in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books about Israel. He also works with a pro-democracy NGO in Yerevan. Follow him at danperry.substack.com
Gilead Sher is a former chief of staff of Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and a senior peace negotiator. He is a non-resident fellow in Middle East peace and security at Rice University’s Baker Institute. His recent book Reflections on Conflict Resolution was published in 2022.