Foreign

Home page

Foreign

US analyst: â€œIf it is possible for Azerbaijan to remain neutral between the West and Iran, it would not be hurtâ€

10 January 2012 09:05 (UTC +04:00)

Washington. Isabel Levine â€“ APA. Xandra Kayden, a popular American political scientist and a senior fellow at the School of Public Affairs at the UCLA, also member of the Board of the League of Women Voters of the US, believes that the West might be able to play a stronger role in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process.

In an interview with APAâ€™s correspondent she mentioned that the biggest problem for Azerbaijan is the large and politically active Armenian population that has lived in the US for generations.

In the meanwhile, the analyst believes that the Westâ€™s interest in the region is to prevent the re-emergence of the Soviet Union and a return to the Cold War climate.

â€œInsofar as the small republics seek to retain their independence, they fit nicely with the Westâ€™s fear of the return to the past. Perhaps the greatest threat is the lack of many strong partnerships, and inter-action between the independent republics and the Westâ€, she said.

Speaking about the South Caucasusâ€™s future integration into the Euro-Atlantic structures, the analyst pointed out that there needs to be a greater interaction between the people in the South Caucuses and the West: students studying in the US, tours of region organized for the leaders of relevant populations, strong business relationships that involve partnerships for both sides.

â€œA stronger, wealthier, and better educated South Caucus region would be an important buffer between the interests of Russia and its potential allies who would seek to destabilize the Middle East. This is suggests something of a shadow of the Cold War. Perhaps it will take another generation to completely put it to rest. Perhaps notâ€, she added.

In the meanwhile, Ms. Kayden worries about the negative sources of potential destabilization in the region including a fundamentalist rise to power, which doesnâ€™t seem likely at the moment.

â€œA force for stabilization, on the other hand, would be greater standing of women in the region in local economies and the general cultureâ€, she added.

Asked how serious the threat against Iran is at the moment, she said, the fear of nuclear power in unstable societies keeps many Western leaders awake at night.

â€œIf there were an atomic attack somewhere, how would anyone really know who was responsible, and it could be 1914 all over again in a matter of minutes instead of a matter of months as different countries tried to strike first before their enemies, etc. Iran â€“ even with regime change, should that occur â€“ will still be hostile to the West and it is hard to see how the slow increase of tension between Iran and the US will subside given the absence of any apparent leader who could lead the nation on another courseâ€, she said.

However, she believes, the question of the American invasion to Iran depends on who wins the next election.

â€œThe Republican presidential candidates talk about war and taking a strong stand, although at this point, talk is cheap and cooler heads might prevail. If Obama is re-elected, it is highly unlikely that he would invade Iran. There are many lessons that could be learned from the recent past: invading tends to make local populations very uneasy, not to say very angry; what could possibly by the plan to â€œtake-overâ€ Iran; we donâ€™t have the money or the inclination to increase the national debt to finance a war, which would, in the end, have to defeat a whole nation, not just a fragile elite at the topâ€, she added.

The analyst also reminded that Iran is too well-established as a nation. It has a fairly strong middle class and, as a rather secular Shia state â€“ as is Azerbaijan â€“ a generally more open society.

â€œIf it is possible for Azerbaijan to remain neutral [between the West and Iran], it would not be hurt, but I doubt that would be the case. Both sides would press for its participationâ€, she added.