Azernews.Az

Nazrin Abdul

Read more

In a dramatic escalation of the regional conflict, Azerbaijan’s neutrality was tested this morning when Nakhchivan Airport came under drone and missile fire around 11:00 a.m., reportedly launched from Iran. The attack, which caused casualties, marks the first direct spillover of the Iran-Israel-United States war into Azerbaijani territory as the confrontation enters its sixth day. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, speaking to Azerbaijani media, insisted that Azerbaijan was not the intended target. Yet the strike raises troubling questions - if Azerbaijan has deliberately avoided entanglement in the conflict, why has it now been drawn into its line of fire? Unlike Gulf states, where U.S. military bases provided Iran with a stated rationale for its actions, Azerbaijan hosts no such facilities. This undermines any logical justification for the attack. Beyond violating international law, the strike represents a breach of neighborly relations.

Diplomatic history underscores the contradiction. Following the death of Iran’s former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev personally visited the Iranian embassy in Baku to offer condolences. Meanwhile, the Astara border has served as a humanitarian lifeline: since February 28, more than 1,200 civilians, including 37 foreign nationals, have been evacuated through Azerbaijan’s territory. Against this backdrop, the attack has understandably fueled public doubt: if Azerbaijan’s policy is neutral and humanitarian, why should the country, particularly Nakhchivan, be subjected to Iranian strikes?

Military expert Adalat Verdiyev told Azernews that Nakhchivan’s targeting is deliberate and strategically motivated.

“Iran attacked to sever Azerbaijan’s connection with Nakhchivan. Azerbaijan has no land connection to the exclave; it is accessible only by air. During the First Karabakh War, Armenia attempted a similar strategy but failed,” Verdiyev explained.

Nakhchivan also provides Azerbaijan with a land border with Turkiye, amplifying its strategic importance. On March 4, Turkiye itself was targeted by a missile launched from Iranian territory, intercepted over Syrian airspace. Although Iran denied responsibility and claimed Turkiye was not the target, the incident has heightened suspicions about Tehran’s intentions.

According to Verdiyev, Iran is attempting to shift the battlefield away from its own territory by striking neutral states.

“Iran is on the verge of defeat against the U.S. and Israel. Rather than confronting U.S. aircraft carriers or Mossad agents directly, Iran is launching drone and missile strikes on neutral countries like Turkiye and Azerbaijan. There is ample photographic and video evidence of the damage. Azerbaijan and Turkiye both have the right to respond, but any retaliation will be carried out at the right time and in the right manner,” he said.

Iran’s actions reflect both military desperation and political calculation. With 30-40 million ethnic Azerbaijanis living in Iran, the regime faces internal pressures. Popular discontent, fueled by war fatigue and growing opposition to clerical rule, is intensifying. In this context, targeting Azerbaijan risks further alienating Iran’s own Azerbaijani population and may prove counterproductive.

Verdiyev went further, urging South Azerbaijanis to rise against the clerical regime:

“The Iranian population must now stand against this dishonorable regime. It should not continue its activities; the state must be dismantled, and those responsible punished,” he concluded.

The Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the attack, stressing that it violates international law and contributes to regional instability. It is clear that Azerbaijan seeks peace, not war. The state does not interfere in the internal affairs of others and does not engage in actions contrary to international law. Ensuring stability and peace in the region remains a core priority. The strike on Nakhchivan highlights the fragility of regional security and the risks of conflict spillover. By targeting neutral states, Iran not only undermines its diplomatic standing but also risks provoking retaliatory measures from countries that have so far avoided direct involvement.

For Azerbaijan, the incident raises critical questions about the sustainability of its neutrality. While Baku has positioned itself as a humanitarian actor, the attack may force a recalibration of its security posture. The coming days will reveal whether Azerbaijan and Turkiye opt for military retaliation or continue to rely on diplomatic channels to contain escalation.