As the war between the U.S./Israel and Iran enters its third week, the intensity of military operations has somewhat decreased compared to the initial phase. However, both Washington and Tel Aviv continue to insist they will end the conflict in victory, while Tehran maintains that it will fight to the end and refuses to surrender.

“Abzas Media” continues to gather perspectives from experts on the evolving situation. We spoke with Eldar Mamedov, a foreign policy specialist with more than 30 years of experience. He is a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute and a member of the Pugwash Council on Science and World Affairs - a Nobel Peace Prize–winning Track II diplomacy organization dedicated to a world free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

The next stage in the war: the blockade of Hormuz

- What do you think about the situation in Iran? What is happening now, and why are the USA and Israel attacking Iran?

- As the war enters its third week, it’s no longer merely a regional war. It now hits the pockets of consumers worldwide. Due to Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, as retaliation for U.S./Israeli aggression, the world is facing a major disruption in raw material supplies — nearly 15% of the world’s oil supply has been interrupted, and half of production and refining in key Persian Gulf countries has been halted.

Israel is interested in Iran’s disintegration and destruction as a functioning state, as it sees Iran as an obstacle to its regional hegemony. After October 7, 2023, Israel has pursued the illusion of “absolute security” for itself, which means absolute insecurity for everybody else.

For the U.S., the main reason it was dragged into the war is its close alliance with Israel. There is nothing, from the point of view of U.S. national interests, that would require going to war with Iran, particularly given the fiasco of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Trump hoped, or was misled to believe, that a decapitation strike — killing the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — would lead to the unraveling of the Iranian regime and the emergence of a Venezuela’s Delcy Rodríguez-type figure who would be ready to accept all American demands.

That did not happen and was never likely to happen, given a completely different power structure in Iran. So, Iran has elected a new supreme leader, the slain Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, and continues to resist. Trump has two choices: either promptly declare victory and withdraw or escalate. For Trump, the first option would be the most sensible, especially since the war on Iran is unpopular in the U.S. — this is even more meaningful in a midterm election year. However, Israel wants escalation, as it needs a destroyed Iran, and without U.S. help, it cannot achieve this on its own.

"Reza Pahlavi offers simply a different model of authoritarianism, not democracy"

- What are the main problems in Iran? Why is there such strong criticism of the government? What are the main human rights and social concerns?

- The Iranian government is, of course, authoritarian; however, it is not more so than in most countries in the region. At least in Iran, there are elections for the president and the parliament. Yes, these elections are restricted, as only supporters of the system are allowed, but even within these constraints, there is a certain limited pluralism — conservatives, hardliners, reformists, etc.

The government lost a lot of credibility and legitimacy when it cracked down hard on protesters in January 2026, killing thousands of people. It is difficult to recover from such a level of repression. However, the existence of a permanent U.S./Israeli threat has given the government an excuse to treat the protests as sedition. Obviously, people in Iran are very unhappy with the government’s corruption, mismanagement, and authoritarianism, but it is also true that the protests were apparently infiltrated by provocateurs who burned down mosques, banks, etc.

- What do you think: Does Iran need a real democracy? And why?

- Every country in the world deserves an accountable government, human rights, and civil liberties. There are no exceptions. Iranians, through their frequent protests and political activism, have demonstrated that they want democratic governance. Many people see the realization of that dream through the removal of the current regime — that is undeniable. However, that does not make them automatically supporters of the exiled son of the deposed shah, Reza Pahlavi, who offers simply a different model of authoritarianism, not democracy. There is some support for Pahlavi and the restoration of the monarchy in Iran, but not more than 20%

"A cornered Iran is a more dangerous Iran"

- Do you have any expectations about today’s war situation? What could be the outcome? Will Iran get a real chance to change itself?

- Iran’s strategy is to inflict damage on the U.S. and its partners and allies in the Persian Gulf as a way to raise the costs of continuing this war. The endgame depends on how much the U.S. is ready to invest in the continuation of this war, in terms of munitions, economic pain, casualties, injuries among its soldiers, etc. For Iran, this is clearly an existential war, and therefore it will defend itself with everything it has, missiles, drones, asymmetric warfare, blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, etc.

As for change, Iran has already changed, just not in the direction those who started this war hoped. It has become more radicalized and securitized, not more liberal. In the conditions of war, that was inevitable. Democratic change doesn’t occur under foreign bombs. Mojtaba Khamenei has very close ties with the IRGC. His entire family has been killed. It is obvious he will be more radical than his father.

- Are there any security, economic, and social concerns for the EU because of the Iran conflict?

- The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz already imposes costs on the EU: rising oil prices (more than $100 per barrel at this point) benefit Russia and Putin and undermine Ukraine. Further war and the disintegration of Iran, a country of more than 90 million people, will unleash more refugee flows. An Iran that is cornered is a more dangerous Iran — there were alleged Iranian strikes on a UK military base in Cyprus, an EU member state. France and Italy seek to negotiate with Iran passage through the Strait of Hormuz because they feel the economic pain of a war they didn’t ask for.

"The EU has no interest in Iran’s disintegration"

- What can the EU do to contribute to stability? Is there any role for the EU in this conflict?

- The EU’s response has been weak, divided, and incoherent. The Prime Minister of Spain, Pedro Sánchez, is the only one who has taken a decisive position against the war by refusing the U.S. permission to use NATO military bases on Spanish territory.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has moved closer to the Spanish position. On the other hand, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has openly supported the U.S.-Israeli actions. France tries to have it both ways: Macron says the war is “outside international law,” but at the same time sends a warship to Cyprus and seems to blame Iran for the outbreak of the war, not the U.S. and Israel.

The EU’s hesitance is explained by the naïve belief that by supporting the U.S., they are ensuring U.S. support for Ukraine. However, the U.S. asked the EU to restart buying Russian oil and asked India to do the same, after months spent pressuring India to stop purchasing Russian oil.

Also, the EU’s lack of a strong reaction to the U.S./Israel war undermines its own case for supporting Ukraine, namely adherence to international law.

What the EU can and should do is follow the Spanish example: refuse any use of military bases in Europe for the U.S.’s war on Iran; introduce sanctions against Israel, just as they rightly sanctioned Russia for its aggression against Ukraine; and condemn this war at every international forum as a blatant violation of international law. That is the bare minimum of what the EU should do.

Generally speaking, the EU is not interested in Iran’s disintegration, as this would lead to waves of refugees to Europe, energy shocks, and a security vacuum that could be exploited by terrorist groups.

- What are the social, economic, and political consequences of the Iran war? How do you see the world after this conflict?

- There can only be negative consequences. The war confirms the rule that strongmen such as Trump, Putin, and others prefer: might makes right. There will be further erosion of international law. There is a possible economic collapse due to the cascading effects of rising oil prices, inflation, and interest rates.

The silver lining of hope is that voters in the U.S. will punish the president’s party in the midterm elections this year and weaken his authority. However, the elections are still some way off, and meanwhile, if the war in Iran proves problematic for the U.S. (which it already is), I would not rule out dramatic escalation by Trump, up to the tactical use of nuclear weapons. I am not saying this is inevitable, but observing this administration, its mix of incompetence, aggressiveness, and cruelty, I would not put the use of nuclear weapons beyond it.

"The South Caucasus and Turkiye are aware of these risks"

- What should be the role of the South Caucasus and Turkiye in solving the Iran problem?

- Turkiye and the South Caucasus countries must be strictly on the side of international law because that is the mainstay of their own long-term security. That is especially the case for Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia as small countries. That means condemning this war and demanding its end using all diplomatic means at their disposal. Only peace, not bombing, can create conditions for better relationships between these countries and Iran. The longer the war goes on, the broader the scope of incidents, such as drones flying to Nakhchivan airport and wounding four civilians.

My sense is that the governments in the South Caucasus and Turkiye are aware of these risks and would like to see de-escalation. For example, after the drone attack in Nakhchivan, hawks in Washington from the Hudson Institute and people like Brenda Shaffer, who has a history of promoting ethnic separatism in Iran, were inciting Azerbaijan to join the war against Iran. But the Azerbaijani government has wisely chosen not to escalate tensions with Iran. That is the right choice, and hopefully Baku will stick to it.

- Are there any challenges for the TRIPP (a transport corridor project that will connect the main part of Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan and pass through the territory of Armenia - ed.) project because of the war?

- Yes, I think TRIPP is not a priority for the U.S. now. Even from the beginning, it was more about intentions than clear plans, supported by funds and political will from Washington. Like so much with Trump and his administration, it was more about show, staging a meeting in Washington between Aliyev and Pashinyan for Trump to claim that he ended a war and deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. This administration has a notoriously short attention span and a lack of basic diplomatic competence. And now, with the war in Iran, it is even less likely that Washington will come up with detailed, credible action on TRIPP.

Author: Jasur Mammadov