Contacts with Tehran and publications against Baku: Whose interests is Eldar Mamedov defending?

The publications of foreign policy analyst Eldar Mamedov on Azerbaijan are increasingly raising questions about his objectivity. The author regularly portrays Baku’s policies as a source of regional tension, places particular emphasis on Azerbaijan’s cooperation with Israel, and at the same time repeats arguments that largely coincide with Tehran’s official rhetoric.

Mamedov presents himself as an independent expert and specialist in international relations. However, his interest in Iran is not limited to analytical writing. Open sources indicate that for many years he has worked professionally on Iran-related issues, participated in unofficial diplomacy involving Tehran, met with representatives of Iranian institutions, and personally visited Iran.

The most specific and well-documented episode dates back to May 2025. From 16 to 20 May, a delegation from the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs visited Tehran, where Iran’s nuclear programme and regional security issues were discussed. Eldar Mamedov was a member of that delegation.

Representatives of the Pugwash movement participated in the Tehran Dialogue Forum, organised by the Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS). The institute is closely linked to Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and plays a prominent role in shaping the country’s foreign policy expert agenda.

During the visit, the delegation held several meetings with Iranian officials. In addition, on 17 May, IPIS organised a separate seminar in which participants discussed negotiations between Iran and the United States, the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, and the possible restoration of diplomatic dialogue.

Published materials confirm Mamedov’s participation in a meeting with IPIS Director Saeed Khatibzadeh. Khatibzadeh is a career Iranian diplomat who previously served as the official spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Therefore, this was not simply a case of Mamedov attending an open international conference. He was part of a delegation that held substantive consultations with representatives of Iran’s foreign policy and strategic establishment.

At the same time, the publicly available reporting does not disclose the full list of Iranian participants in each meeting and does not provide transcripts of the discussions. It would therefore be incorrect to claim that Mamedov independently conducted official negotiations on behalf of the European Union or any other party. His direct participation in contacts with Iranian representatives, however, has been confirmed.

The trip to Tehran was far from the first episode in his work on Iran-related issues. For more than 10 years, Mamedov served as a political adviser to the Socialists and Democrats group in the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs. His responsibilities included interparliamentary relations with Iran, Iraq, the Mashreq countries, and the states of the Arabian Peninsula.

Such work involved regular interaction with diplomats, politicians, experts, and representatives of government institutions across the region. Mamedov had access to discussions concerning European Union policy towards Iran, sanctions, the nuclear agreement, and relations between Brussels and Tehran.

Another detail deserves particular attention. A biographical note published by the US-based Stimson Center explicitly states that Mamedov participated in back-channel diplomacy with Iran and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.

Such contacts are typically conducted outside formal diplomatic channels. Participants may communicate the positions of the parties, explore possible compromises, maintain dialogue during periods of crisis, and exchange political signals.

The source does not disclose whom Mamedov contacted in Iran or the substance of those discussions. Such unofficial contacts do not in themselves imply any unlawful cooperation with Tehran. They do, however, indicate that Mamedov is more closely connected to Iran-related issues than his official biography might suggest.

Against this background, the nature of his publications on Azerbaijan warrants particular attention. In Mamedov’s articles, Baku is often portrayed as a state that allegedly threatens regional stability because of its cooperation with Israel. At the same time, Iran’s own actions, including military threats, pressure on Azerbaijan, exercises near the Azerbaijani border, and Tehran’s close cooperation with Armenia, are often not treated with the same level of scrutiny.

Mamedov has repeatedly focused on the Azerbaijani-Israeli military and political partnership, alleged intelligence activity, and the possible use of Azerbaijani territory against Iran. This thematic selectivity creates the impression that the author views the region primarily through the prism of Iranian threats and concerns.

In an article published on 9 June 2026, Mamedov once again highlighted allegations regarding Azerbaijan’s role in Israeli operations against Iran. He argued that CNN reports could undermine Baku’s ability to deny such cooperation and expose Azerbaijan to the risk of an Iranian response.

The article itself, however, is based on reports and assumptions that are not accompanied by publicly available evidence of Azerbaijan’s direct involvement in specific military operations. Despite this, the theory, which could carry reputational consequences for Baku and increase tensions between Azerbaijan and Iran, is explored extensively in the article.

This does not appear to be an isolated critical publication, but rather part of a consistent pattern. Mamedov regularly selects topics in which Azerbaijan is portrayed as a covert participant in dangerous regional developments, an Israeli partner against Iran, or a state whose policies could provoke a new conflict.

At the same time, the author’s arguments often align with narratives promoted by Iranian officials and expert platforms close to Tehran. These include framing Azerbaijani-Israeli cooperation as a threat to Iran, alleging that Baku facilitates Israeli activities, and warning of potential consequences for Azerbaijan.

Such similarities do not in themselves demonstrate that Mamedov receives instructions or payment from Iranian institutions. It cannot be claimed that his articles are commissioned by Tehran or that he acts as a paid representative of the Iranian government.

However, the combination of several factors — his long-standing focus on Iran-related issues, participation in unofficial diplomacy, visit to Tehran, meetings with representatives of Iran’s foreign policy establishment, and consistently critical coverage of Azerbaijan — inevitably raises questions about the author’s impartiality.

When an analyst systematically selects topics that portray one state in a negative light, while his conclusions repeatedly align with the position of another state with which he has maintained professional contacts, readers are entitled to question whether this reflects independent analysis or a particular political worldview.

It cannot be ruled out that Mamedov genuinely considers his work to be purely analytical and part of a broader diplomatic-expert environment. Nevertheless, his articles are difficult to perceive as politically neutral. They reflect a consistent critical line towards Baku, while Tehran’s position is often presented as a rational response to the actions of Azerbaijan and Israel.

It is also noteworthy that, when discussing potential escalation, the emphasis is frequently placed on Azerbaijan’s responsibility. Issues such as Iranian pressure, interference in the internal affairs of neighbouring states, support for armed groups, or statements by Iranian officials tend to receive comparatively less attention.

The result is a one-sided picture: Azerbaijan is presented as the primary source of risk, Israel as the catalyst, and Iran as a reactive actor responding to its advesaries. This framing is closely aligned with elements of Tehran’s foreign policy narrative.

There is no public evidence that Mamedov writes articles commissioned by Tehran. However, the nature of his publications, his consistent selection of critical narratives regarding Azerbaijan, and the convergence of several of his conclusions with Iranian rhetoric provide grounds for questions about whose perspectives his analysis ultimately reflects.

By Samir Muradov

News.Az