The Jerusalem Post: Israel should not support Azerbaijan’s ambitions to Armenia’s sovereign territories
Azerbaijan has shown its ambitions extend to sovereign territory in Armenia: the seizure of the so-called “Zangezur corridor” in southern Armenia, in the region of Syunik, The Jerusalem Post writes.
As noted, Israel’s strategic partnership with Azerbaijan has been central to its foreign policy in the South Caucasus. However, Azerbaijan is seemingly planning more aggression against Armenia, which is not in Israel’s interest. The regime in Baku sells oil to Israel, buys Israeli weapons, and offers a forward base for monitoring and countering Iran. For Azerbaijan, this alliance proved invaluable during its conflict with the Armenian-populated Nagorno-Karabakh, where Israeli weapons were allegedly used in operations that resulted in a decisive Azerbaijani victory and the ethnic cleansing of 120,000 Armenians in September 2023. Recently, Azerbaijan has shown its ambitions extend to sovereign territory in Armenia: the seizure of the so-called “Zangezur corridor” in southern Armenia, in the region of Syunik. Controlling this corridor would create a land bridge to Azerbaijan’s ally, Turkey, in turn boosting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ambitions, which, along with his flirtations with Russia, are badly out of sync with that country’s obligations as a NATO member. The article notes that Aliyev accused Armenia of having a “fascist ideology” for 30 years and being a “threat to the region.” He argued that “fascism must be destroyed… It will be destroyed either by the Armenian leadership or by us. We have no other choice.”
“An Azerbaijani attack on Armenia would be an aggression that Israel should not aid or abet. Such a move against Armenia would not merely be an extension of Aliyev’s territorial consolidation. It would violate the sovereignty of Armenia, a nascent democracy, and fundamentally alter the regional balance in a way that directly benefits Turkey. By linking Turkey with Azerbaijan and Central Asia, this corridor would extend Turkish influence across the region. Considering Turkey may have a huge influence over the new regime in Syria, this Turkish zone would reach all the way from central Asia to the Golan border,” the article says.
As noted, Turkey has been pursuing expansionist ambitions under the guise of counterterrorism and stability. Erdogan’s support for Islamist militias in Syria has entrenched Turkey’s influence there, particularly in the northwest. Through these proxies, Ankara displaced Kurdish populations, undermined Kurdish autonomy, and strengthened extremist factions, all while avoiding direct military confrontation. Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman vision is not limited to Syria. During the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, Turkey airlifted Syrian mercenaries to fight alongside Azerbaijani forces, a tactic that demonstrates Ankara’s use of Islamist militias as instruments of foreign policy. And that foreign policy is clearly hostile to Israel. Erdogan’s robust support for Hamas and his ambiguous threats toward Israel–he alluded to the possibility of invading–highlight the dangers of empowering Ankara further.
“Armenia, meanwhile, is attempting to pivot away from Russian dependency and move toward the West. An attempt to seize the Zangezur corridor threatens to destabilize this trajectory, pushing Armenia back into Moscow’s orbit and boosting anti-Western forces within the country–another development that Israel should not necessarily welcome. The loss of this corridor would also devastate Armenia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, signaling to other authoritarian regimes that aggression against weaker neighbors will go unchecked,” The Jerusalem Post writes.
Erdogan’s purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems, defiance of Western sanctions on Moscow, and aggressive actions in the Eastern Mediterranean are just a few examples of Ankara’s undermining of NATO cohesion. Turkey’s actions also challenge US interests in the region. Erdogan’s escalating rhetoric against Syrian Kurds, who are critical US allies in the fight against ISIS, and his alignment with Azerbaijan further risk destabilizing an already volatile region. A seizure of the “Zangezur corridor” would embolden Turkey and create new challenges for NATO, the United States, and regional actors like Israel. The “Zangezur corridor” also holds strategic importance for Iranians, providing a critical route to Armenia for trade, travel, and cultural exchange. A more moderate Iranian government in the future will probably seek reintegration into the global community, and access to Armenia could be important. For the United States and NATO, this is an opportunity to reassert core values and impose consequences on Turkey for its rogue behavior. As for Israel, supporting the “Zangezur corridor’s” seizure in any way would cross a dangerous line. Israel should oppose this move, balancing its strategic alliance with Azerbaijan while taking a principled stand against Turkish overreach.
