Aliyev in Georgia and Trump on the brink of a critical decision Caliber.Az weekly review

The editorial team of Caliber.Az presents the latest episode of the programme “Events” with Murad Abiyev.

Azerbaijan

The President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, paid a state visit to Georgia. During the trip, he met with the President of Georgia, Mikheil Kavelashvili, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze, as well as the founder and honorary chairman of the ruling party Georgian Dream, Bidzina Ivanishvili.

The leitmotif of these talks was the parties’ commitment to economic cooperation and regional stability. The central topic was strengthening interaction between the two countries as a reliable energy and transport link connecting vast areas of Asia and Europe. It should be emphasised that the importance of Azerbaijan and Georgia in this context has further increased due to the conflicts taking place both to the north and to the south of our borders.

Prime Minister Kobakhidze underlined the importance of developing transport and logistics infrastructure, increasing trade and investment, and expressed confidence in the continued strengthening of the partnership for the benefit of the peoples of both countries. President Aliyev, among other things, noted the growth in trade turnover and significant Azerbaijani investments in Georgia’s economy, as well as prospects for expanding joint projects, including international initiatives.

During the visit, no documents were signed; however, this only further underlines the importance of the meetings and negotiations themselves. In the context of global geopolitical turbulence, Azerbaijan and Georgia demonstrated to the entire world that they must and can operate in a unified mode. It remains to be seen when Armenia will join this format of cooperation.

By the way, these days another event is taking place within the framework of the “Peace Bridge” initiative. A delegation of representatives of Armenian civil society crossed the border into Azerbaijan, after which the Armenian and Azerbaijani delegations held another bilateral roundtable. Attention is drawn to the size of the delegations — twenty participants from each side. This is evidence that the project is developing successfully and that the range of issues being addressed is expanding.

Iran

On April 8, when the deadline of the ultimatum expired and Trump was, according to his own words, about to “send Iran back to the Stone Age,” the US President informed the world that the parties had reached a two-week truce during which they would discuss the terms for ending the war.

At the same time, Trump stressed that he accepts Iranian proposals consisting of ten points as a working basis for negotiations. This immediately created a sense of strangeness around what is happening, since Iranian proposals are, by definition, unacceptable to the United States. In other words, even if Washington is moving towards some form of compromise, it cannot simply announce that this compromise will be based on the Iranian vision of the situation. All this increases suspicions of a certain flaw in US–Iran communication. Or perhaps, more likely, this reflects Trump’s own style — for him, at this stage, what matters, according to the Napoleonic maxim, is to enter the battle, in this case — pardon the pun — into a ceasefire, and then see how things unfold.

It is not surprising that such a ceasefire immediately began to be tested. Israel, while targeting Hezbollah operatives, struck a residential area in Beirut, killing several dozen civilians and stating that the ceasefire does not apply to Lebanon. Trump supported Israel on this issue, while the Pakistani side confirmed that the ceasefire agreement also included Lebanon. Iran, meanwhile, has not lifted the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, prompting another outburst of anger from the US President, who once again began issuing threats against the Islamic Republic.

Against the backdrop of this confusion, negotiations are now taking place in Islamabad. At present, it is known that the American delegation will be led by Vice President J.D. Vance, and the Iranian delegation by Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Ghalibaf.

In principle, the very fact of the start of direct negotiations is quite significant for this conflict. In this sense, Donald Trump, despite all the drawbacks of broken communication, has managed through force of will to create a possibility of freezing certain outcomes of the war, in order to later exit it.

At the same time, the Iranians may perhaps avoid overestimating Trump’s desire to end the war ahead of the election campaign in the context of the midterm elections to Congress. It is important to understand that, once a certain threshold is crossed, a war with Iran, while becoming a curse for the Republican Party, could simultaneously turn into a matter of personal honour for Trump.

As the leader of the “greatest nation on earth” — and, in a certain sense, this is indeed how it is perceived — he may now be focusing not on party interests, but on fulfilling what he sees as his personal mission. In this sense, the idea of “sending Iran back to the Stone Age” is not merely a figure of speech intended to pressure Tehran into negotiations; it also has every chance of becoming an idée fixe for Trump. It seems that he is now balancing on the edge, without having fully abandoned this concept.

After all, by destroying Iran, he would consider that he has fulfilled his personal mission — eliminating what he sees as a centre of evil on Earth. One should not forget, in this context, the close ties with Israel, and, no less importantly, with the Christian Zionist lobby in the United States. For both, Iran, due to its irreconcilable stance towards the Jewish state, represents an existential enemy. Finally, one must also take into account the long-standing American desire to settle accounts for the humiliation of 1980, when the special operation to rescue American hostages from Iranian captivity failed.

It is often said that Trump has the psychology of a businessman and will always act from the standpoint of economic rationality. However, one should not forget that he has already satisfied his business ambitions, and now, in the later stage of his life, he is pursuing a different objective. And it is very simple — he wants to remain in history.

This is the point that Iran, as a state, must take into account if it, in turn, wants to remain in history. And something suggests that it already has. However, this conflict is extremely complex and unpredictable, which means that events may develop in any direction.