Escalating war around Iran raises questions about Armenia’s preparedness

2026-03-04 - 17:05

YEREVAN — In a dramatic escalation of tensions in the Middle East, U.S. and Israeli forces launched a coordinated strike on Iranian territory earlier this week, reportedly targeting key military and strategic sites and resulting in the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei along with senior commanders. Within hours, Iran carried out retaliatory strikes on Israel and U.S. military installations across the Gulf region, including bases in Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and other allied territories, signaling the potential for a wider regional conflict. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned commercial transit through the Strait of Hormuz could be halted, effectively disrupting passage through a maritime chokepoint responsible for roughly one-fifth of the world’s daily oil supply. The development drove energy prices sharply higher and triggered economic turbulence across global markets. The human toll of the hostilities drew international outrage after an independent United Nations investigation condemned a missile strike that destroyed the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ school in Minab, southern Iran, killing scores of students on the first day of the conflict — one of the deadliest single incidents in the campaign. Analysts warn the situation could escalate further, with Iran threatening broader military action against both U.S. and Israeli interests across the Middle East. Meanwhile, international organizations have called for restraint, emphasizing the risk of civilian casualties and a prolonged escalation that could destabilize the region for years to come. With civilian infrastructure under attack and key sea lanes effectively closed, the crisis — now entering its fifth day — poses one of the most serious challenges to international stability in decades. Against this backdrop of intensifying conflict and strategic uncertainty, attention has focused on capitals from Washington to Tehran. At the same time, Armenia’s political leadership appeared focused on different priorities — a juxtaposition that critics say raises questions about the country’s strategic awareness and decision-making during a period of profound international upheaval. On Saturday — the same day the conflict escalated — Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, accompanied by Defense Minister Suren Papikyan, National Assembly Speaker Alen Simonyan, Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan and other senior officials, embarked on a nationwide campaign tour aimed at determining the order of the first 50 candidates on the ruling Civil Contract party’s electoral list through an internal party vote. Throughout the tour, Pashinyan documented the trip through Facebook Live broadcasts, drawing significant public attention. Two clips in particular, showing Pashinyan and National Assembly Speaker Alen Simonyan eating piroshki and corn during the visit, sparked criticism from opposition figures, who described the timing of the posts as inappropriate given the escalating international crisis. Members of the ruling Civil Contract party defended the broadcasts, arguing that the opposition’s criticism reflects dissatisfaction with what they described as a period of relative peace in Armenia. They emphasized that, unlike many regional neighbors, Armenia is “not currently engaged in armed conflict,” allowing officials to travel domestically and participate in ordinary civic and cultural activities. Party representatives urged critics to recognize the country’s stability, framing the broadcasts as a reflection of Armenia’s secure and peaceful conditions. Political analyst Vladimir Martirosyan warned that the escalation places the region in a “high-risk phase,” with direct consequences for Armenia’s security and stability. “Armenia faces immediate strategic challenges: energy transit routes, border management, economic connectivity, external pressures and potential migration risks,” Martirosyan said. He pointed to the likelihood of refugee flows from a country of 90 million people, which could strain border checkpoints and place additional pressure on social and security systems. “The state is obligated to anticipate these scenarios and maintain mechanisms to mitigate risks,” he said. According to Martirosyan, current observations suggest a lack of comprehensive strategic planning. He cited the absence of emergency-level discussions, clear public messaging, institutional preparedness, structured risk assessment and diplomatic communication. Instead, officials have relied on visible media activity, including social media broadcasts and staged public appearances, which critics argue amount to performance rather than governance. “When a neighboring country enters a phase of military escalation, the primary responsibility of the authorities is risk management, not self-presentation for cameras,” Martirosyan said. “National security is not a public relations project. State governance is not blogging.” He added that his critique was not made with expectations of immediate corrective action but to prevent such behavior from becoming normalized among officials who still feel responsibility toward the country and its citizens. During a press briefing, Armenian Revolutionary Federation member and lawmaker Artur Khachatryan cautioned that Armenia could face serious economic and security consequences as the Iran-U.S.-Israel conflict unfolds. Responding to questions about the possibility of Azerbaijan exploiting the situation, Khachatryan said: “In turbulent waters, people always try to catch fish. I do not rule anything out. In any case, our armed forces must maintain a high level of readiness.” Khachatryan highlighted the potential economic impact if Armenia’s border with Iran were to close. “This is not just about bilateral trade. Iran represents one of our main commercial routes. If the border shuts down, the negative effects are obvious. Air transport could also be disrupted, and if there is an influx of refugees, we must be prepared to manage it. Just 50 meters south of our territory there is active conflict — we cannot predict what might happen,” he said. He also said the attacks against Iran appeared inevitable, noting that even if the strikes had been delayed, they were likely to occur in the near term. “The state should have negotiated alternative routes to ensure trucks and goods could continue moving. If the border closes, people and businesses will suffer losses,” Khachatryan said, criticizing what he described as a lack of proactive government planning.