Objective: Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, as significant northern
neighbors of Iran, have consistently played a central role in the foreign
policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), largely due to their ongoing
and historical disputes. The Iranian government’s approach toward these
states has been a point of contention among Iranian elites and policymakers.
Consequently, assessing which of these two countries demonstrates
greater reliability, especially during periods of crisis, remains a critical issue
in IRI foreign policy. The military conflicts of 2025 and 2026, including
Israeli and United States attacks on Iranian territory, present a valuable
context for this assessment. Utilizing constructivist theory to identify the
characteristics of a “Good Neighbor,” this article conducts a comparative
analysis of Yerevan’s and Baku’s responses to the 2025 and 2026 attacks,
with particular attention to official statements, elite perspectives, and public
opinion in both countries.
Research Method: In this comparative study, data were collected from
library resources and online sources. A mixed quantitative–qualitative content
analysis method was employed to analyze the data.
Findings: Analysis through a constructivist framework and empirical
data from the two wars demonstrates that Armenia’s positions align more
closely with the constructivist understanding of a “Good Neighbor.” This
alignment is evident in Armenia’s respect for the norm of non-use of force,
prioritization of regional stability, and conceptualization of security as a
shared interest. The constructivist perspective suggests that the notion of a
good neighbor develops through extended processes of identity formation
and socialization.
Conclusion: This study demonstrates that Yerevan’s policy of good neighborliness
during the two wars was shaped by Armenia’s identity and perceptions
of its southern neighbor. By contrast, given its strategic identity as
both a partner of Israel and a neighbor of Iran, the Republic of Azerbaijan
exhibited dual behavior that resulted in a policy of cautious balancing. This
policy was characterized by considerable ambiguity and equivocation. The
difference between the two countries cannot be explained solely in terms
of material considerations. Rather, the two governments’ differing understandings
of “Neighborliness,” “Security,” “Interests,” “Friendship,” and
“Enmity,” all of which operate in a meaningful relationship with “Identity,”
played a fundamental role.