AZE.US
As military escalation around Iran intensifies, rhetoric about “demilitarization,” “denazification,” and even regime change has returned to the forefront of international discourse. But beyond the slogans, the central question remains: is this about dismantling a government – or about reshaping the regional balance of power?
In a discussion on the Daily Europe Online channel, Azerbaijani political analyst Ilgar Velizade and Professor Togrul Ismail of Kahramanmaraş University examined the crisis through the lens of geopolitical realism rather than political messaging.
Force Versus International Legitimacy
Velizade argued that appeals to international law ring increasingly hollow in the current environment. While legal frameworks formally exist, state behavior is increasingly shaped by power calculations rather than procedure.
“If military force becomes acceptable whenever a regime is deemed undesirable, then the remaining structure of global security becomes conditional,” he noted.
The issue, he stressed, is not moral defense of Tehran’s political system. It is the precedent. Once force is normalized outside established procedures, similar logic can be applied elsewhere.
A Clash of Strategic Worldviews
Professor Ismail placed the crisis within a broader theoretical context. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States operated from a position of liberal hegemony – the belief that a Western-style political order could be universalized.
However, major powers such as China – and regional actors like Iran – continue to operate within a classical balance-of-power framework.
Iran, in this reading, is not simply an authoritarian regime. It is a regional power embedded in the strategic architecture between the Caspian basin, the Persian Gulf, and the Levant. Its missile capabilities, proxy networks, and geographic position make it structurally significant.
The instability, Ismail suggested, stems from a deeper mismatch: some actors frame international politics in terms of universal values, while others view it as a competition of spheres of influence. The absence of a shared language between these approaches fuels recurring crises.
Can Airpower Remove a Regime?
Both analysts expressed skepticism about the feasibility of regime change through airstrikes alone.
Air campaigns can degrade infrastructure. They cannot dismantle political systems without an organized internal alternative. Unlike Libya in 2011, Iran does not currently have a consolidated armed opposition capable of replacing the central authority.
The frequently mentioned figure of Reza Pahlavi was described as a largely media-driven presence without substantial domestic infrastructure inside Iran.
Moreover, external military pressure often produces the opposite of its intended effect: internal consolidation. Societies facing external attack tend to rally around state structures, even when internal dissatisfaction exists.
Ground Intervention: Unlikely and Risky
A full-scale ground intervention appears improbable.
Iran’s size, population of over 80 million, complex geography, and established security institutions would make occupation extremely costly. The Iraq precedent remains politically sensitive in Washington.
A more plausible scenario, according to the experts, involves sustained pressure: infrastructure targeting, sanctions, cyber operations, and attempts to widen elite fractures.
Yet the strategic question remains unresolved: if the current leadership weakens, who replaces it? Without a credible and structured alternative, any power vacuum risks fragmentation rather than democratic transition.
Azerbaijan’s Delicate Position
For Azerbaijan, the situation carries both strategic and humanitarian dimensions.
Baku maintains working relations with the United States, Israel, and Iran, and has consistently avoided allowing its territory to be used against neighboring states.
However, the humanitarian factor is significant. Millions of ethnic Azerbaijanis live in northern Iran, near the Azerbaijani border. A prolonged conflict could create spillover pressures, including refugee flows.
Velizade emphasized that Azerbaijan is not pursuing political engineering in Iran. But contingency planning for humanitarian scenarios is unavoidable.
The Broader Context
The confrontation around Iran is not solely about Tehran’s internal politics. It reflects a larger structural contest over regional order and global power distribution.
Regime change from outside appears unlikely in the short term. Ground invasion carries high risk. Sustained pressure may weaken institutions, but it also introduces the possibility of fragmentation.
The decisive variable may not be military capability – but what political structure emerges if the current one erodes.
And that remains an open question.