Serhiy Danilov, Deputy Director of the Ukrainian Center for Middle East Studies
Amid the ongoing war in Ukraine and rising geopolitical tensions involving Iran, Kyiv has begun reassessing its approach toward Tehran. Recent contacts between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and exiled Iranian crown prince Reza Pahlavi, as well as increasingly sharp rhetoric from Iranian officials toward Ukraine, reflect the complex dynamics shaping relations between the two countries.
In an interview with News.Az, Serhiy Danilov, deputy director of the Ukrainian Center for Middle East Studies, discusses the motives behind Zelensky’s meetings with Pahlavi, the political context of Iran’s threats against Ukraine, internal power struggles within the Iranian leadership, and the potential role of ethnic groups in Iran in the event of instability.
– Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently met exiled Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi for the second time. What were the motives behind these meetings?
– We are currently seeing increased activity from the Ukrainian side towards Iran. This reflects Kyiv’s reassessment of its strategy and approach to Tehran. The shift coincides with personnel changes in the country’s leadership and has been evident in other areas of Ukrainian diplomacy. For instance, during the same period, President Zelensky held his first meeting with the leader of the Belarusian opposition.
It appears that Kyiv has concluded its patience has run out and that diplomatic efforts to neutralise Iranian support for the Russian regime have not produced meaningful results. At the same time, Ukrainian policymakers have likely assessed that the risk of Iran transferring ballistic missiles to Moscow remains relatively low.
Reza Pahlavi is likely seen as a potentially important figure in Iranian politics should the current regime undergo significant change. It is impossible to predict his precise role at this stage, but it is conceivable that he could eventually lead one of the parliamentary factions in a future Iranian political system.
There is also an emotional dimension to this development. The Iranian diaspora in Europe and North America has increasingly rallied around the former Shah’s family while expressing strong support for Ukraine. Ukrainian refugees frequently highlight this solidarity, and many participate in demonstrations organised by Iranian groups abroad.
Source: The Office of the President of Ukraine
– The head of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Committee, Ebrahim Azizi, recently stated that all of Ukraine is now a “legitimate target” for Iran because Kyiv has expressed willingness to assist the US and its allies in countering Iranian drones. How would you comment on this statement?
– Ebrahim Azizi is a prominent and symbolic figure in Iranian politics. He served for many years in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was vice president under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and later held a legal position within the Council for the Defence of the Constitution.
In January this year, Azizi publicly acknowledged the shooting of protesters and even threatened to track down and punish those involved in demonstrations. His political views are widely regarded as extremely radical. He currently represents one of the main opponents of the moderate wing associated with President Masoud Pezeshkian’s circle.
His claim that “Ukraine is a legitimate target” can therefore be viewed in the context of internal political struggle. In many ways, it seems intended to undermine the president and block potential dialogue with Western countries. While Iran’s Foreign Ministry has sought to soften rhetoric and avoid direct escalation, Azizi, speaking for parliamentary and security structures, signals readiness for confrontation.
It is also important to consider how Iranian media have presented this statement. IRGC-controlled outlets have portrayed Azizi’s remarks as reflecting the position of the entire state, framing him as speaking on behalf of the nation and the “martyrs” of Iran. By contrast, government-controlled agencies have clearly distanced themselves, noting that the statement was made by a parliamentary committee head rather than the Iranian government itself.
When assessing the practical possibility of such a strike, geography must be considered. Any Iranian ballistic missile targeting Ukraine would have to pass through Russian territory, which would constitute an act of aggression against Russia. In that sense, Azizi’s statement could even be interpreted as indirectly anti-Russian.
Dissatisfaction with Russia exists within the IRGC. Some believe Moscow has betrayed Iranian interests and is negotiating at Iran’s expense. Tehran also views the West’s temporary one-month suspension of certain sanctions on the Russian oil sector as part of a geopolitical game between Russia and the United States at Iran's expense.
Moreover, statements like Azizi’s, declaring Ukraine a legitimate target, can paradoxically highlight the effectiveness of Ukrainian drones. By making such claims, Iranian officials implicitly acknowledge that these drones are considered a serious threat and could have a tangible impact on the battlefield.
– How likely is it that ethnic groups in Iran could rise up against the central government?
– At present, a coordinated uprising by ethnic groups seems unlikely. However, the situation could change if Iran were to experience widespread chaos, a collapse of governance in some regions, or a form of civil conflict.
Even then, the reaction of various ethnic communities would be difficult to predict. It would probably not take the form of a direct revolt against central authorities. More likely, local groups would focus on distancing themselves from the crisis, prioritising survival and stability in their own regions rather than launching a unified rebellion against the government.
News.Az
