Adgezal Mamedov: “Netanyahu will try to make use of the Baghirov-Beria project against the Tehran regime.”

Different opinions are being expressed regarding the events taking place in Iran. Some experts say that Azerbaijanis may start protesting and join the struggle for national identity. There are even those who compare what is happening in the neighboring country today to the Pishevari movement from a historical perspective. On these issues, we turned to the well-known researcher Adgezal Mamedov, the author of numerous books in recent years about South Azerbaijan and the Pishevari movement.

Mr. Adgezal, recently, in light of the events in Iran, a comprehensive analysis article about the books you have dedicated to Mircəfər Bağırov has been published by strategists in the Tehran press. Why do you think the topic of Mircəfər Bağırov has become relevant in Iran today?

Indeed, it is not surprising to me that such articles have been published in Iran. This is because part of Mir Jafar Baghirov’s political activities is related to Iran, especially Tabriz. The book in question is a research work that I wrote in my younger years. A specific section of the book discusses M.J.Baghirov‘s particular involvement in the Kremlin’s policy towards Iran. Of course, M.J. Baghirov was not merely a blind executor in this policy; he was, in fact, a key architect of it. In this regard, the recent shift in Iranian researchers’ focus on the topic of M.J. Baghirov and the founders of the democratic party in Tabriz, such as Sayyed Ja’farPishevari, Shabestari, Padegan, and Giyami, is a very serious signal…

My book, “The Failed Coup of 2003 – Top Secret Documents,” was published in 2003. However, in 2018, it was published in Iran in Farsi without my permission. The article titled “نقش رقابت سیاسی در کرملین در فراز و فرود فرقه دموکرات آذربایجان/مسعود صدرمحمدی,” which is based on this book, raises several concerns by asking questions about a few issues presented in the book. First, I would also like to mention that for some reason, the author of the article has unjustifiably portrayed me as a retired security officer, despite the fact that this book, filled with archival documents, highlights the relevance and importance of the period it covers, both then and today.

Simply put, the ability to work with relevant archival documents and explore the psychological portraits of the politicians of that era has generated serious interest in the book beyond Azerbaijan. The encouraging part is that this book has been included in the electronic catalog of some of the world’s leading universities (such as Stanford, Berkeley, Illinois, Brown, etc.) as well as the U.S. Congress Library. It has also been published in several foreign languages. In fact, I even received a letter of thanks from the head of the European sector of the U.S. Congress Library, expressing serious interest in the book (Grant G. Harris, Chief, European Division, The Library of Congress, 101 Independence Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20540-4830).

It seems that the Iranian strategist who wrote the article about your book is concerned that the Baghirov-Pishevari incident might resurface under a different name?

I can say with complete certainty that the author of the South Azerbaijan project was M.J. Baghirov from start to finish. At that time, the Soviet leadership had to choose between relying on the Kurds or the Azerbaijanis. This was because, in the future, Iran falling into the sphere of influence of the United States would mean the expulsion of the Soviet Union from the region. To prevent this, the Soviet leadership worked on a plan to confront the Tehran regime with the resistance of the ethnic groups living in Iran. Many, especially the military, suggested that Moscow choose ethnic Kurds as strategic partners. However, M. Baghirov, with the help of L. Beria, was able to prove the groundlessness of these suggestions. With the assistance of L. Beria and the Deputy Foreign Minister of the NKVD, V.N. Dekanozov, Baghirov managed to convince Stalin to base the plan on Iranian Azerbaijanis. On September 9, 1941, Stalin sent a telegram to Baghirov, asking him to come to Moscow for one day. During that meeting, Baghirov presented his project proposals to Stalin. According to this plan, Aziz Aliyev, the secretary of the Az.K(b) P MK, would lead the party group to South Azerbaijan. Stalin approved Baghirov’s proposal. The group included Suleyman Rahimov, Mehbali Amiraslanov, AghasalimAtakishiyev, Mustafa Guliyev, and Mirza Ibrahimov. By the decision of the Military Council and the order of the commander of the Transcaucasian army, on September 16, Colonel-Commissioner Aziz Aliyev was appointed a member of the Military Council of the 47th Army entering Tabriz. After a certain period, M. Baghirov began to receive information from Aziz Aliyev’s group.

After some time, differences of opinion arose between Aziz Aliyev and the Soviet ambassador to Iran, A. Smirnov. These differences emerged after Aziz Aliyev wrote a letter to the Soviet garrison’s leadership. In that letter, he demanded the cessation of weapon collection from the local population, meaning the Azerbaijanis. In response, A. Smirnov wrote a letter to Moscow, characterizing Aliyev as a nationalist. M. Baghirov, in turn, began to defend Aziz Aliyev by contacting the Deputy Foreign Minister of the NKVD, Dekanozov.

Despite all these pressures, on October 24, 1941, Aziz Aliyev sent M. Baghirov a “Report on South Azerbaijan,” in which he wrote:”Lessons in schools are conducted in Persian, but the local Azerbaijanis want to be educated in the Turkish language, which is why the publication of the “On the Path of the Homeland(Vətən yolunda) newspaper has brought great joy to the Azerbaijanis.”

M.C. Baghirov’s project had already started to yield its first results in Iran. The Iranian side began discussions on forming an alliance agreement between the USSR, Iran, and Great Britain. On January 26, 1942, the Iranian Parliament concluded the discussions on the Soviet-British-Iranian alliance. On January 29, 1942, the USSR’s ambassador A. Smirnov, R. Bullard on behalf of Great Britain, and Iran’s Foreign Minister Soheili signed the agreement on the alliance between Great Britain, the USSR, and Iran.

On February 10, 1942, a series of congratulatory telegrams were exchanged between Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi and U.S. President Roosevelt regarding the signing of this agreement. In his letter to the U.S. president, the Iranian Shah mentioned that he saw the U.S. as the guarantor of Iran’s territorial integrity.

These events took place during the most intense days of the war. The Soviet leadership was planning for the opening of a second front by Britain and the U.S. Therefore, the Soviet leadership slightly weakened its activities in Iran.

The Soviet leadership reduced active political propaganda in South Azerbaijan until a complete victory over Nazi Germany was achieved, in order to avoid damaging relations with Great Britain. However, Soviet troops still remained in Iran. As a result of the reduction in activity, Aziz Aliyev, who returned to Baku, was soon appointed the First Secretary of the Dagestan Party Committee based on M. Baghirov’srecommendation to Stalin. However, a negative consequence of this reduced activity during the war years was the growing influence of the U.S. and Great Britain on the Iranian leadership. The demand for oil in the USSR was increasing day by day. Therefore, the Soviet leadership sought to bring Iran into its sphere of influence by any means possible. The struggle for the Middle East and oil forced Stalin to take more decisive steps. Taking advantage of this opportunity, M. Baghirov revealed his political “trump card.” It was during those days, on September 14, 1944, that M. Baghirov, in a letter addressed to Stalin, stated:

The Azerbaijanis would not be able to unite in the Tudeh Party led by Ardashir Avanesyan. Here, the person’s Armenian identity distanced the Azerbaijanis from the party. I believe that to influence the Tehran regime, it will be necessary to create a new political force made up of Azerbaijanis.” Believe me, with just this sentence, Baghirov was not only protecting the Azerbaijanis from potential deportation, but also emphasizing the importance of the Azerbaijani factor as a geopolitical power in front of Stalin.

The main task was to convince Stalin of this. Stalin took this issue seriously and instructed V. Molotov to send a note to the Iranian Shah regarding the violation of the rights of Iran’s Azerbaijani population. This protest note was sent. As a result, a serious force was created against the Shah’s regime, not through the previously considered left-wing Tudeh Party, but by directly founding the Democratic Azerbaijan Party, which highlighted ethnic identity. In fact, this was an indication that M.C. Baghirov, as I mentioned above, was not just a blind executor of the Kremlin’s policy in Iran, but its game creator. Today, I certainly do not rule out the possibility that the U.S. might exploit the Baghirov-Beria project from the 1940s against the Tehran regime.

In such a situation, what position should Azerbaijan take?

We should once again be grateful for the far-sighted wisdom of the founder of the modern Azerbaijani state, our National Leader Heydar Aliyev, because our Great Leader established a state for us that has a multi-vector foreign policy, allowing us to make independent decisions. These traditions are successfully continued today by our esteemed President, Mr. Ilham Aliyev, with the primary focus on our national interests. Moreover, there is a significant difference between the conditions of that era and the realities of today. At that time, Azerbaijan was part of the Soviet Union, and the Moscow factor had doctrinal significance in foreign policy. Today, however, the leading line in our foreign policy is the benefit of our national statehood. As indicated in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ statement regarding the recent events in Iran, we support the establishment of peace in Iran, and we are confident that the Iranian people will emerge from these processes with their heads held high. However, we would like Iranian officials to review their attitude towards the occupying Armenian state, especially in these days. In any case, this is our expectation from a brotherly country. At the same time, Iran, as part of the Eurasian geography, is one of the main leading lines in the context of the Slavic-Turkic and Aryan union. From this perspective, we must support stability in Iran. But all of this does not mean that we should remain indifferent to the fate of our compatriots in Iran. Moreover, we know that occasionally some Iranian politicians and religious figures criticize Azerbaijan for military-technical cooperation with Israel. However, I would like to remind those who criticize that in the early years of the Karabakh war, “Peace efforts” were initiated with Hashemi Rafsanjani and Dr. Ali Akbar Velayati. In fact, at that time, the Azerbaijani people were left alone on the battlefield, and neither Muslim brotherhood nor the policy of supporting Azerbaijanis, who make up half of Iran’s population, came to mind. But, occasionally, aside from military support, Iran’s politicians of that time withheld the support and aid they provided to Palestine from the Azerbaijani people. The question arises:

So, what should we have done?

In modern military construction, acquiring modern technologies is a crucial condition. These technologies are available in several countries around the world. Only the state of Israel agreed to provide these technologies to us and to collaborate on building factories. No one should forget that the acquisition of new-generation technologies has always been a global struggle, and it will continue to be. After World War II, the victorious countries engaged in a life-or-death struggle to obtain the military technologies of Nazi Germany’s scientists. Neither Moscow nor Washington cared about their fascist past. Therefore, it would be better if some Iranian politicians put an end to the unfounded accusations made against Azerbaijan and, in general, reconsider their attitude towards the occupying Armenian state. Let’s be honest!