Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit to Baku to participate in the CICA summit may point to a broader strategic agenda in Azerbaijan-Israel relations. In an interview with News.Az, Israeli political scientist Zeev Khanin discusses Azerbaijan’s growing importance to Israeli foreign policy and Baku’s ability to maintain dialogue with competing regional powers.
Hanin also examines Azerbaijan’s place in the evolving regional architecture. He highlights the Middle Corridor, emerging transport and energy routes, the growing geopolitical significance of the South Caucasus and Central Asia, and the potential for new strategic initiatives between Baku and Jerusalem.
— Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s participation in the CICA summit in Baku was a significant political event. What message, in your view, was Israel seeking to send to its regional partners through the President’s presence at the summit?
— This was certainly not a routine visit. It is important to remember that the President of Israel does not exercise the kind of executive authority vested in presidents in countries such as Azerbaijan or the United States. Israel is a parliamentary democracy, where the president primarily performs ceremonial and representative functions and serves as a symbol of national unity. Key political decisions, including those on foreign policy, are made by the government.
That said, Israeli prime ministers and governments have at times entrusted presidents with sensitive diplomatic missions. There is ample precedent for this. The late Shimon Peres, for example, performed such a role on numerous occasions.
Source: Itay Beit-On/GPO
It appears that Isaac Herzog may have been carrying out a special diplomatic mission in Baku as well. He addressed an international summit hosted by the Azerbaijani leadership, and the public statements from both sides were positive, clear and consistent with the interests and values of the two countries.
But it is reasonable to assume that other contacts and discussions took place behind the scenes, potentially involving issues of strategic importance.
In that sense, Herzog’s presence — and the mission he may have been entrusted with — was highly significant. The very fact that the Israeli president attended such a gathering underscores the importance Israel attaches to its relationship with Azerbaijan and the Israeli leadership’s interest in further deepening those ties.
— Azerbaijan maintains close relations with Israel, Türkiye, the Arab world and the countries of Central Asia. How important is Baku’s ability to engage with states whose positions on key regional issues often diverge sharply?
— Azerbaijan-Israel relations are already exceptionally broad and deep, spanning defense, the economy, high technology, agriculture, diplomacy and a range of other areas. Day-to-day cooperation is handled by the relevant institutions — from the defense and foreign ministries to economic agencies and intelligence services.
But when it comes to major strategic breakthroughs, the political level becomes particularly important. It is reasonable to assume that Herzog’s visit, which would naturally have been coordinated with the Israeli government, also involved discussions of potential new initiatives with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev.
Source: president.az
One must also take into account the differences between the political systems of the two countries. In Israel, the government makes the principal policy decisions. In Azerbaijan, the president plays the central role in determining the country’s foreign policy direction.
— Against the backdrop of regional conflicts and growing competition among major powers, transport and energy corridors connecting the South Caucasus, Central Asia, Türkiye and the Middle East are becoming increasingly important. How does Israel view the strategic significance of this emerging network?
— I believe this may well have been one of the key issues discussed during Herzog’s visit to Baku.
Naturally, we do not have complete information about what was discussed behind closed doors, so any conclusions in this regard remain speculative. Still, there are good reasons to believe that the two sides are interested in exploring new strategic projects.
These could include the development of the Middle Corridor, energy initiatives, new transport links, defense cooperation and new diplomatic frameworks. More broadly, this is about the emergence of alternative and complementary routes for international trade, including in the context of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Such routes could complement existing China-linked infrastructure while also providing alternative channels for trade and connectivity.
Source: radiometro.ru
The South Caucasus and Central Asia are becoming increasingly important as global supply chains evolve and competition among the world’s major powers intensifies. The European Union and the United States are also stepping up their engagement with countries across these regions.
Within this emerging architecture, Azerbaijan occupies an important position as a hub linking transport, energy and diplomatic networks. For Israel, participation in the development of these connections could carry both economic and strategic benefits. New corridors can expand trade opportunities, make supply chains more resilient and open additional channels for engagement with Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
Azerbaijan, of course, is pursuing its own strategic objectives as well. Baku wants to consolidate the country’s position as a regional transport, economic and diplomatic hub. Its interests extend well beyond the South Caucasus and include both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.
Cooperation with Israel could therefore become part of a broader Azerbaijani strategy aimed at expanding the country’s international partnerships and strengthening its position within the emerging regional architecture. Let me stress once again that any discussion of potential new projects or the substance of closed-door talks remains speculative.
Nevertheless, the nature of Azerbaijan-Israel relations, the strategic interests shared by the two countries and the rapidly changing geopolitical environment all suggest that Herzog’s visit may have involved a considerably broader agenda than was reflected in the public statements.
I expect that more information will emerge over time, giving us a clearer picture of the substance and scale of the initiatives that may have been discussed.
