ABOUT MOTTAKI’S VISIT
Hakob Badalyan

Lragir.am
27/01/10

The visit of the Iranian foreign minister to Armenia is regular but
it seems to be taking place under some new light. Two circumstances
promote it: this visit follows the trilateral meeting in Sochi, as
well as Robert Kocharyan’s Iranian visit where he was received by
the Iranian president Ahmadinezhad and Mottaki himself.

Kocharyan’s circumstance especially attaches much interest to Mottaki’s
visit. If the Iranian government called Robert Kocharyan to talk to
him, can we presume that Mottaki’s visit to Armenia was caused by
this conversation? If yes, why is there need to visit Armenia after
having talked to Kocharyan. Which was the reason to invite Kocharyan
to Iran If Mottaki was to visit Armenia? Did the Iranian side try to
clear up issues about Armenia with Robert Kocharyan? And the latter
advised them to turn to Serge Sargsyan with those questions because
he has no authorization to solve any issue, at least of that scale.

Or maybe, the Iranian side needed Robert Kocharyan’s assistance
to solve some issue with Armenia. It is difficult to think that
Kocharyan’s visit to Iran and Mottaki’s visit to Armenia have nothing
in common. It is difficult also to think that both visits do not have
anything in common with the process of the Karabakh issue settlement.

These processes directly touch upon the Iranian interests. It is clear
that the preservation of the status quo in the Karabakh issue stems
from the very interest because the most expedient version for Iran is
that its neighboring areas were under the Armenian and not some other
army. From this point, Iran, mildly speaking, needs the preservation
of status quo on the territory of the Karabakh conflict. Consequently,
at least several episodes of the Armenian and Turkish process are
unpleasant for the official Tehran, mildly speaking, episodes which
may bring about changes in the region from the point of repartition
of forces in physical, political and moral-psychological spheres
enhancing the Turkish role in the region.

Perhaps, from this point, it is understandable what the official Tehran
and Robert Kocharyan have to speak about. Since Robert Kocharyan,
just from the beginning was against the football diplomacy.

The question is how the conversations between the official Tehran
and the official Yerevan are going to differ from the one between
Tehran and Kocharyan. Yet, another thing: does this mean that Robert
Kocharyan and the official Yerevan have anything to speak about? Or
Robert Kocharyan proposed to the official Yerevan to be a "means"
in the hands of the official Yerevan in its relation with Iran.