News ID : 152092
Publish Date : 9/30/2023 5:03:31 PM
The strategy of the Zionists in Caucasus and their confrontation against the 3+3 format

EXCLUSIVE

The strategy of the Zionists in Caucasus and their confrontation against the 3+3 format

The US and the Zionist regime, along with France and the United Kingdom, believe that the arrangement of the Caucasus peace negotiations table with the presence of six countries, Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russia, Georgia and Turkey, can lead to the realization of a lasting peace and finally, will block the path of these countries’ interventionism in the equations of Central Asia.

NOURNEWS- These days, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Nagorno-Karabakh have become keywords and controversial geographic centers in the field of international relations, and many analysts of geopolitical issues believe that the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia should not be analyzed in the form of a two-dimensional equation.

The mentioned conflict should be evaluated in the heart of a vast, invisible and at the same time tangible format, which is created by actors whose livelihood and strength in the Caucasus and Central Asia depends on the creation, continuation, and stabilization of deep geographical and strategic crises in this area.

The Zionist regime has passed over the “both war and peace” strategy towards the Caucasus region and is clearly focused on the “permanent war and conflict” strategy.

America, as the main supporter of creating permanent crises in Russia's peripheral area, although it supports this costly strategy, it moves in this direction with less risk than the Zionists.

Some tactical conflicts have been formed between Tel Aviv and Washington in the Caucasus, especially regarding the manner and method of supporting Baku and Yerevan, are originating from this issue and their conflicts.

The common concerns of Tel Aviv and Washington which they absolutely share is related to disrupting the 3+3 format in the Caucasus.

These two foreign interventionist and warmongering actors, along with France and Britain believe that the arrangement of the Caucasus peace negotiations table with the presence of six countries, Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russia, Georgia and Turkey, can lead to the realization of a lasting peace and finally, will block the path of these countries’ interventionism in the equations of Central Asia.

Therefore, America and the Zionist regime, which their life in the Caucasus depends on only in the shadow of crisis and conflict, are trying to prevent this format from happening in any way possible.

Therefore, when we consider that most of the weapons used by the Republic of Azerbaijan are made by Israel, Tel Aviv has warned Baku that it should play a variable role depending on Tel Aviv in drawing the boundaries and gaps of war and peace in the Caucasus.

Baku's insistence on arranging new contracts in order to supply more weapons, especially surface-to-surface missiles, drones and other missiles carrying heavy warheads, has led to the intensification of this demand from the Zionists and has strengthened Israel’s leverage against Azerbaijan.

Of course, deciphering such actions is not a difficult task, because Tel Aviv is willing to give any concession to Baku or even to Yerevan if necessary, so that the principle of crisis and tension in the Caucasus remains alive.

In this direction, Washington also moves in sync with Tel Aviv, and the strategic common denominator of their game in the Caucasus is the same despite some of their tactical differences.

In such a situation, relying on the 3+3 format and persuading Azerbaijan and Armenia to distance themselves from the inductive and imposed strategy of the Zionists is considered the most important precondition for the realization of a kind of sustainable and opportunity-creating peace and cooperation in the Caucasus.

With these explanations; If we consider Israel's main goal of playing an active role in this region to be a more effective confrontation with Iran, the joint strategy of Tel Aviv-Washington in this regard should be considered the same as the “war in the gray zone” strategy, which earlier in the fall of 2021 was also proposed by the think tanks of “Foundation for Defense of Democracies” (designer of the Maximum Pressure Project) and ultimately was recommended to the administration of “Donald Trump”.

At that time, Haifa University professor and director of the Energy Department (FDD) of this foundation, Brenda Shaffer, said in a recommendation letter to Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State at the time; Because Iran does not want a conflict in the Caucasus and has good relations with the parties to the conflict, the situation should be changed to a lose-lose game for Tehran so that, firstly, it does not have the power to mediate, and secondly, with any action or position announcement, Tehran will lose at least one of the two spheres which are under influence.

BY: Pooya Mirzaei 


NOURNEWS
Comments

first name & last name

email

comment

X
آگهی تبلیغاتی