On March 25, political scientist and Director of the Caspia Analytical Center, Orkhan Yolchuyev, spoke at the International Scientific and Methodological Seminar “Ensuring Socio-Political Stability amid Geopolitical Turbulence: Lessons from the Middle East and Belarus”, held online under the auspices of the Center for Political Science at the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (NASB).

Yolchuyev noted that security issues today have acquired exceptional significance, particularly in the strategically sensitive South Caucasus region. According to the expert, the modern world is facing increasing fragmentation of the global order that was established after World War II.

"What was once created as a stable and predictable system is now being dismantled by the very countries that once shaped these rules," Yolchuyev explained. He emphasized that for the past three decades, the world has operated under the so-called rules-based order—a system formally grounded in rules. In practice, however, it was a power-based order: those with strength set the rules. Today, the consequences of this logic are becoming apparent, as the U.S.-led post-World War II order is effectively being undone by its own architects.

According to Yolchuyev, Iran has become one of the epicenters of this global chaos. The Middle East is entering a new phase in which events are no longer purely local, acquiring regional and global resonance. Strikes against Iran can no longer be viewed as isolated crisis episodes—they mark the beginning of a profound restructuring of the regional balance of power, the consequences of which inevitably extend beyond a single country or even the entire region.

The expert highlighted the potential consequences of the elimination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the head of the National Security Council, Ali Larijani: "This would transform accumulated tensions into a qualitatively new, more dangerous phase. It is not just about internal transformations in Iran, but also about the ramifications for global politics, trade, energy, and regional security architecture."

Yolchuyev stressed that viewing the conflict solely as a confrontation between the U.S. and Israel on one side and Iran on the other would be superficial. Currently, four conflict lines operate simultaneously: direct U.S. and Israeli strikes, Iran’s retaliatory actions against Israel and regional actors, energy-related pressure through the Strait of Hormuz, and behind-the-scenes diplomatic maneuvers. If even one of these lines were halted, tensions might ease; as long as they operate concurrently, however, the conflict becomes a self-perpetuating regional crisis.

He warned of the risk of the conflict spreading geographically: "Iran is not limited to strikes on Israel. The Gulf states are also under threat, while Israel increases pressure simultaneously on Iranian and Lebanese fronts." Under such conditions, bilateral confrontation inevitably escalates into a broader regional process.

The elimination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, in Yolchuyev’s assessment, would be an unprecedented event for the international system, raising questions about sovereignty, the limits of permissible action, and the future of international law. While the U.S. and Israel justify their actions as necessary to neutralize Iran’s military and nuclear strategies, the consequences could be double-edged: on one hand, weakening Tehran, and on the other, increasing the risk of prolonged confrontation and straining U.S. military presence in the region.

Yolchuyev outlined several possible near-term scenarios. The most likely is a limited diplomatic pause, with the U.S. postponing strikes on energy facilities and Iran maintaining informal negotiation channels. This would not constitute a full peace agreement, but rather a controlled pause allowing temporary stabilization without eliminating existing risks.

Another scenario is a protracted war of attrition, with ongoing combat, deepening energy crises, and regional actors increasingly drawn into confrontation. Recent weeks’ dynamics most closely align with this scenario, and Yolchuyev warns that as the parties become exhausted, their actions could grow increasingly rigid.

Regional escalation is another concerning possibility, involving an intensified Lebanese front, new attacks in the Persian Gulf, additional clashes in Iraq, and disruptions to maritime communications. Localized incidents could evolve into a large-scale regional operation to restructure the Middle East.

Finally, political transformation during a military pause is a scenario under discussion but currently the least confirmed. Possible mediation channels and experimental crisis management models exist, yet such paths are inherently unstable: transitional figures often simultaneously become targets, creating additional risk.

The expert paid special attention to the Caspian region. Israeli strikes on Iran’s maritime infrastructure in the Caspian have altered supply chains and cargo flows. Four international transport corridors pass through Azerbaijan, two of which are key—the Middle Corridor and the North-South route. Since the escalation began, significant cargo flows have been redirected through Baku and the Black Sea, creating new logistics routes and shifting the regional transport balance.

Yolchuyev emphasized that Azerbaijan and Iran actively coordinate on Caspian security issues at the diplomatic level. Azerbaijan, he noted, demonstrates measured restraint: the country has no interest in escalation, has provided humanitarian aid to Iran twice, yet is prepared for any scenario. "Today, Azerbaijan’s key priority is maintaining regional stability. At the same time, the country demonstrates the capacity to defend its strategic interests, and the consequences of any escalation will be felt not only in Iran but across the entire regional configuration," concluded Orkhan Yolchuyev.