Shoaib Bahman | Institute for Studies of Contemporary World
The legal status of the Caspian Sea has long been a major geopolitical concern for Iran. Supporters of the Caspian Convention have used strategic and security arguments to justify its approval. The article argues that these claims lack logical and factual foundations and could undermine Iran’s national interests and territorial integrity in the Caspian region.
Russian Pressure: A Distortion of Reality
The claim that Russia pressured Iran to approve the convention is challenged. Following the Ukraine war, Russia has sought to limit Caspian energy exports to Europe, particularly from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. Therefore, the convention could instead facilitate competing energy routes to Europe and work against Moscow’s interests.
Southern Blockade: An Unfounded Argument
Another justification is that Iran needs the convention to guarantee access to northern maritime routes amid a potential U.S. blockade of its southern waters. However, Iran’s northern maritime and transit routes are already open and operational. The convention therefore does not determine whether these routes remain accessible.
Territorial Integrity and National Interests
These justifications could provide political cover for decisions that threaten Iran’s maritime rights and territorial interests. Claims about foreign pressure or security threats may normalize the acceptance of an agreement that could reduce Iran’s position in the Caspian without a clear strategic necessity.
Conclusion
Neither Russian pressure nor the southern blockade provides a convincing justification for approving the convention. Instead, Iran should prioritize national interests, protect its historical and territorial rights in the Caspian, and avoid decisions that could weaken its geopolitical position.
