Aliyev’s diplomacy, Pashinyan’s gamble, and Trump’s strike A week of high-stake geopolitics

The editorial team of Caliber.Az presents a new episode of the program "Events" with Murad Abiyev, which highlights the main news of the week related to Azerbaijan and beyond.

AZERBAIJAN – ARMENIA

Ilham Aliyev travelled to the Turkish city of Kahramanmaraş, which, as we recall, was severely affected by the 2023 earthquake. Azerbaijan financed the construction of an entire residential district in this city. Unsurprisingly, the district was named the "Azerbaijan" quarter. President Ilham Aliyev took part in its official inauguration ceremony.

The speeches by Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Kahramanmaraş once again reflected the commitment of the nations to the principles of brotherhood, resilience, and mutual support in their relations. Political messages were also conveyed during the event. President Aliyev stated that today, the Turkish-Azerbaijani brotherhood is an important factor not only for the region but also on a global scale.

It is crucial to emphasise the geopolitical context in which this meeting took place. Ankara and Baku have demonstrated, first and foremost, that the brotherhood and strategic alliance between the two countries transcend any speculations about a supposed divergence of views. Such speculations have become more frequent recently, especially against the backdrop of the ongoing crisis in the Middle East.

Secondly, it can be assumed that President Ilham Aliyev’s visit shortly before the arrival of Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan sends a clear signal to all interested parties: Ankara, as before, links the issue of normalising relations with Yerevan to a just position from Baku.

Now, a few words about Nikol Pashinyan’s visit to Istanbul. Whatever the outcomes of this trip may be, it can already be called historic—if only because it marks the first time an Armenian leader has travelled to Türkiye specifically for negotiations. Notably, Pashinyan had previously visited Türkiye in 2023 to attend President Erdoğan’s inauguration.

This visit, by its very nature, holds the potential to change much. It's not just that Pashinyan is breaking down perceptual barriers within Armenian society regarding Türkiye, often shaped by the events of 1915. What also matters is that the warm and respectful welcome extended to the Armenian leader on Turkish soil presented a vivid picture to the Armenian people: that Türkiye is ready to recognise Armenia as an equal partner.

The parties refrained from providing detailed reports of the meeting. It is only known that the discussions included Türkiye-Armenia relations, peace and dialogue in the South Caucasus, and current regional developments.

For Armenia, the issue of normalising relations with Türkiye has become even more pressing amid the outbreak of war between Israel and Iran. In the face of growing geopolitical uncertainty along its southern border, the opening of land borders with Türkiye is becoming as essential for Armenians—both economically and psychologically—as sunlight and water.

Armenia is now very close to returning to its geographical reality and finally building its foreign policy on that basis. If he has the political will, Pashinyan could prove to be the helmsman who leads the nation back to its natural harbour. For now, however, like Odysseus, he is forced to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis—that is, between the West and Russia.

In some respects, these two forces even appear to act in unison. This is evident in the solidarity shown by the hierarchy of the Armenian Church. Notably, during his visit to the Cathedral of the Holy Mother of God in Istanbul, neither the Armenian Patriarch of Istanbul nor any clergy emerged to greet him. The Armenian Prime Minister was accompanied only by members of the church council and the head of the Armenian church school. Pashinyan bowed his head and crossed himself, visibly troubled.

MIDDLE EAST

The war between Israel and Iran continues to escalate. The Islamic Republic has recovered from the initial shock and is now deliberately launching ballistic missiles at the Jewish state. Some of these missiles are reaching Israeli cities, causing widespread panic among the population. In this regard, Israel faces a mounting psychological challenge. It remains unclear how long citizens can endure living under such conditions.

Israel, for its part, is focusing on destroying Iran’s missile launch sites. However, Iran is a vast country, and by all accounts, it possesses a large number of such installations. There are also growing concerns that Israel could eventually face a shortage of precision-guided munitions. That said, everything could change if the United States directly enters the conflict. 

That shift came in the early hours of June 22, when U.S. President Donald Trump ordered direct missile strikes on key Iranian nuclear facilities. The American military targeted several sites, including the underground enrichment plant in Fordow, a heavily fortified facility buried 90 metres deep. The strikes mark a turning point, and military experts now suggest the number of missiles launched against Iranian targets could increase to 600–700 per day, sustained over a prolonged campaign.

Yet in Israel, the highest expectation remains tied to the use of American bunker-buster bombs—specifically against Fordow. The June 22 strikes may signal that the threshold has now been crossed.

“Mr. President, finish the job,” read a giant banner that had been erected in Tel Aviv just days earlier—a call that no longer sounds rhetorical.

Donald Trump had told reporters just a week prior: “I may do it, I may not; No one knows what I'll do.” Now the world knows.

However, those earlier ambiguous remarks by Trump reflected not so much a desire to confuse, but rather genuine indecision. At the time, he truly did not know what course to take—a hesitation that, in retrospect, makes the decision he ultimately took all the more consequential. In the early hours of June 22, Trump authorised direct missile strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, marking a dramatic escalation in the Israel–Iran war and plunging the United States into open conflict.

The move came despite intense internal pressure from opposing sides within the American political establishment. The stakes were—and remain—extraordinarily high, as is the pressure on the president from various factions across the political spectrum.

Leading the opposition to U.S. military involvement were key figures from the MAGA wing of the Republican Party, including Trump’s former adviser Steve Bannon and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Both warned against plunging the U.S. into another Middle Eastern war. Gabbard’s outspoken stance reportedly led to her exclusion from further high-level discussions on Iran.

In contrast, the traditional Reagan- and Bush-era Republican neoconservatives pushed hard for a forceful military response. The rift became most visible in a now-viral interview between Senator Ted Cruz—who has seemingly aligned with the neocon faction—and conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. Carlson ridiculed Cruz when he failed to give even a rough estimate of Iran’s population.

“You don’t know the population of the country you seek to topple?” Carlson laughed.

When asked about Iran’s ethnic makeup, Cruz answered awkwardly: “Predominantly Shiites.”

“You don't know anything about Iran,” Carlson retorted.

For now, Trump has dismissed Carlson as “crazy.” Prior to that, as we know, the president had already parted ways with the Republican Party’s most influential donor from the so-called “Third Way” camp—Elon Musk. If things continue down this path, it’s not out of the question that a third major political party could officially emerge in the United States.

At its core, the real question now is whether Trump is a revolutionary or merely another neoconservative. The only unfortunate part is that the flip side of this political drama could be chaos and devastation in the Middle East.