Gaza, Iran, and America’s Strategic Reset

By

 


Azerbaijan could play a critical role in ongoing peace efforts in the Middle East—particularly in engagement with neighboring Iran.

At the inaugural session of the Board of Peace on February 19, US president Donald Trump is expected to outline a Gaza reconstruction plan and a UN-mandated stabilization force to secure the enclave. Representatives from at least 20 states, including several national leaders, are expected in Washington. A key focus will be the establishment of a multi-billion-dollar fund that pools member contributions for post-conflict recovery. US officials say Trump will also announce which states have pledged thousands of troops for the multinational force in Gaza.

One month into President Trump’s second term, I argued in “The US Geostrategy and the Old World Order” that the United States had begun a historic recalibration of its foreign-policy doctrine. This transformation was long in the making, shaped by three decades of geopolitical realities since the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. I noted that shifts of this magnitude rarely proceed smoothly, producing a turbulent transition as institutions, alliances, and assumptions resist change. While instability is inherent to systemic realignment, addressing new threats with outdated frameworks is increasingly untenable and risky.

America’s Burden-Sharing Approach to Middle East Diplomacy

For the United States to pursue a geostrategy of global management through burden-sharing and burden-shifting, Washington must first resolve legacy conflicts that limit flexibility. The Middle East remains the most complex, with the Trump Administration focusing on the Board of Peace approach centered on Gaza. The initiative aims to end a regional war and build a coalition to assume long-term security, stabilization, and reconstruction responsibilities. Yet developments within and about Iran could complicate the plan, potentially requiring support from states beyond the region—most notably Azerbaijan.

Operationalizing this approach requires careful diplomacy with key regional players, particularly Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, as well as the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan. Resolving conflicts among them helps align allies capable of assuming most security and stabilization responsibilities. Turkey and Saudi Arabia are central to this approach, ideally coordinated with Israel. Yet diverging Turkish and Israeli interests, Saudi Arabia’s retreat from normalization efforts with Israel, and Saudi-UAE divergence complicate a coherent regional strategy.

The regional calculus is further complicated by Iran’s geopolitical fragility. Ongoing American diplomacy faces mounting strains as factional divisions in Tehran deepen, reflected in the weakening of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the growing influence of the Artesh. These dynamics have prompted the deployment of a second US carrier strike group, heightening the risk of renewed conflict. Washington is attempting to guide the region toward post-conflict stabilization even as the possibility of confrontation with Iran persists.

Reconciling Turkey and Saudi Arabia with Israel while managing tensions with Iran will require skillful statecraft from the Trump administration. Azerbaijan is well-positioned to assist due to its unique diplomatic ties. It maintains close relations with Turkey, the UAE, and Israel, while also engaging Saudi Arabia. Washington can leverage Baku as a key intermediary to coordinate regional actors.

Azerbaijan has already demonstrated both the intent and capability to act as a strategic intermediary in the Middle East. It has hosted deconfliction talks between Turkey and Israel, underscoring its readiness to bridge regional divides. Baku has also served as a conduit between Israel and the new regime in Syria, exemplified by Ahmed al-Shara’s visit to Baku. Its participation in the Board of Peace further highlights the country’s growing diplomatic importance.

What Azerbaijan Brings to the Peace Table

An unparalleled combination of geographic, historical, and sociopolitical factors confers exceptional leverage on Azerbaijan. Positioned along Iran’s northwestern frontier, it borders provinces with large ethnic Azeri populations whose cultural ties to Baku remain strong. Azerbaijan’s secular model, combined with the Iranian Azeris’ presence in senior state and military roles, offers the United States a potential window into Iran’s internal dynamics. Leveraging these connections, Baku could support stabilization efforts and help shape Tehran’s behavior amid ongoing diplomacy and security pressure.

Vice President JD Vance’s Feb. 10–11 visit to Baku advanced US geostrategy by formalizing Azerbaijan’s role in regional stabilization. The two countries signed a Strategic Partnership Charter, committing to enhanced maritime security and economic connectivity. The visit underscores Baku’s strategic value as US lawmakers consider repealing Section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support Act. Originally enacted during the 1988–94 Armenia-Azerbaijan war and supported by diaspora lobbying, 907 is now largely obsolete following the 2020–23 conflict and the August 2025 peace deal brokered by the Trump administration.

It remains a barrier to expanding American-Azerbaijani ties envisioned in the Strategic Charter signed by Vance. The Armenian National Committee of America’s effort to preserve the restriction is increasingly anachronistic and counterproductive to the very community it seeks to serve. Profound changes in Armenia’s own interests, regional geopolitics, and American global strategy have altered the landscape. Overcoming Cold War–era constraints is essential for Washington to operationalize its new geostrategy in the Middle East and West Asia.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Quantum computing, decentralized energy and Ai-driven autonomous weapons will in control.

By
Image
  1. Whether quantum computing destabilizes all current deterrence models.   2. Whether decentralized energy microgrids undermine state-level energy leverage.   3. whether AI-driven autonomous weapons lower the threshold for global conflict.                Could Quantum Computing Destabilize All Current Deterrence Models? A. Quantum Computing’s Strategic Potential Quantum computing (QC) promises: Breaking current encryption (RSA, ECC) Ultra-fast optimization of logistics and supply chains Simulation of complex systems (e.g., nuclear reactions) Enhanced AI training efficiency Immediate strategic implications : Cryptography : Current nuclear command-and-control relies heavily on secure communications. QC could make conventional encryption obsolete. Missile Defense : Quantum-enhanced optimization could allow more precise interception simulations, potentially undermining confidence in current missile det...
Read more

Would Great Powers Accept Relational Accountability Over Strategic Dominance?

By
Image
  At the core of international politics lies a persistent tension: are great powers primarily guardians of order or maximizers of advantage? The modern state system, especially since 1945, has been structured around strategic dominance—military deterrence, economic leverage, technological supremacy, and geopolitical positioning. Relational accountability, by contrast, demands that powerful actors accept responsibility for how their actions affect weaker states and the broader global community. It requires constraint, reciprocity, and moral transparency. The critical question is not whether relational accountability is ethically desirable. It is whether great powers—given structural incentives—would rationally accept it over dominance. 1. The Logic of Strategic Dominance Great powers operate within an anarchic international system. There is no global sovereign capable of enforcing universal rules. Institutions such as the United Nations exist, but enforcement ultimately depends...
Read more

Why Petrol Cars Still Dominate in Most of the World—Despite EV Hype

By
Image
The global narrative around electric vehicles (EVs) suggests an unstoppable march toward an all-electric future. Headlines highlight rising EV sales in wealthy countries, bold government bans on petrol cars, and ambitious climate pledges from automakers. Yet step outside a few high-income markets and the picture changes dramatically. In most of the world—across Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Latin America, and large parts of Eastern Europe—petrol (and diesel) cars continue to dominate roads, sales, and consumer preferences. This persistence is not simply due to resistance to change or lack of awareness. It reflects deep structural realities: economics, infrastructure, energy systems, industrial capacity, and social behavior. Understanding why petrol cars remain dominant requires moving beyond hype and examining how mobility actually works for the majority of the global population. 1. Cost: The Decisive Barrier The most immediate and decisive factor is price . EVs remain significantl...
Read more

China and the United States approach income and wealth differently, especially when considering how the rich, middle class, and poor are affected.

By
Image
                                        1. United States (U.S.) Tax Approach a. High-Income / Ultra-Rich: Income Taxes: The U.S. uses a progressive federal income tax system; the highest marginal rate is 37% (as of 2026) for individuals earning above roughly $600,000 per year. Capital Gains Taxes: Wealthy Americans often earn more from investments than wages, which are taxed at lower rates (0–23.8% depending on income and type of gain). Wealth Inequality Factor: Many rich people use tax deductions, offshore accounts, trusts, and business structures to reduce effective tax rates, sometimes far below the statutory rate. Estate Taxes: The U.S. has an estate tax, but it applies only to very large estates (over $13.6 million for individuals), so most inheritances are untaxed. b. Middle Class / Hard-Working: Income Taxes: Progressive but lower brackets; they pay between ...
Read more

Is Democracy Being Universalized as a Value—or Selectively Applied as a Foreign Policy Tool by the United States and the European Union?

By
Image
The promotion of democracy has become a defining feature of Western foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Both the United States and the European Union consistently articulate democracy, rule of law, and human rights as universal values. Official documents, strategic doctrines, development programs, and diplomatic engagements frame democratic governance not merely as a political system but as a normative global standard. Yet critics argue that democracy promotion is not applied consistently. They contend that democratic principles are often subordinated to strategic interests—security alliances, energy access, trade partnerships, or geopolitical competition. This tension raises a central question: Is democracy genuinely being universalized as a value, or is it selectively instrumentalized as a foreign policy tool? The answer is not binary. It involves both normative commitment and geopolitical calculation. 1. Democracy as a Universal Normative Framework Following the Col...
Read more