• Commentary
  • Research
  • Experts
  • Events
Carnegie China logoCarnegie lettermark logo
{
  "authors": [
    "Maxim Suchkov"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Middle East",
    "Israel",
    "Caucasus"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economy",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary

Sources of Israel’s Policy in the Caucasus

Israel’s interests in the Caucasus have three principal dimensions: strategically, as a means of encircling Iran; in the mid-term, as a zone of energy supplies; and in a short-term, as a market for selling high tech arms and ammunition.

Link Copied
By Maxim Suchkov
Published on Feb 5, 2015

The scope of Israeli foreign policy is often mistakenly narrowed to its geographical location. While Tel Aviv’s vital interests are certainly concentrated in the Middle East, its intellectual, political, economic, technological, and lobbying resources harken its description as a regional power with a global outreach.

The Jewish political tradition is primarily based on the school of realism. From this school, the country has derived the three guiding principles of its foreign policy: a focus on “survival in an antagonistic neighborhood,” the pursuit of power, and the formation of alliances. Israel’s foreign policy is also very much linked to its deep-seated historical traditions.

The “Alliance of the Periphery,” formed in the 1950s, is one of these traditions. The Periphery Doctrine, as it was framed, presumed the development of close relationships with non-Arab Muslim nations in the Middle East. At the time, the two chief targets of the policy were Turkey and pre-revolutionary Iran. Times have changed; Ankara is perceived as unfriendly at best and Tehran is an ominous threat. Moreover, with the rise of ISIS and Islamist sentiments, Israel’s stance in the region has been challenged further. Today, the Periphery Doctrine that once seemed to have been stored away has been called back into action. But this time it is targeted toward a region that feels the dynamic vibe of the Middle East yet has geopolitical leverage over its northern part—the Caucasus.

Israel’s engagement in the Caucasus increased in the late 2000s when its Foreign Ministry established special departments on the Caucasus and Central Asia. In its relatively short track record of focusing more resources on the region, Israeli policy has gone through two major stages. The first stage took place before 2008 and focused on Georgia. Israel trained the Georgian army and allowed private defense firms to supply it with drones and sophisticated equipment. After the war in South Ossetia in 2008, Tel-Aviv lowered its public profile in Georgia to avoid antagonizing Moscow. To compensate, Israel augmented its presence in Azerbaijan.

In this second stage of engagement in the Caucasus, the trade turnover between the two countries amounted to some 4 billion dollars, with Israel buying Azeri oil and planning to import 12 billion cubic meters of gas from the Caspian country over the next decade. Most importantly, however Israel sees Azerbaijan, in the words of former President Shimon Perez, as “key in limiting Iran’s influence in the Greater Middle East.” The well-known list of grievances between Baku and Tehran includes four major areas of disagreement: 1) the status of the Caspian Sea; 2) the Nagorno Karabakh issue where Iran has taken a rather pro-Armenian stance; 3) the territorial dispute over the northwestern part of Iran—the so called “Iranian Azerbaijan” that is home to an estimated 20 million ethnic Azeris; 4) a religious factor—Baku accuses Iran of fueling radical moods in the secular Shia-majority country. Against this background, Israel sees Azerbaijan as pivotal in its “encirclement strategy” of the Islamic Republic. While there are several restrains to the Israeli-Azerbaijani rapprochement such as the Turkish factor, anti-Semitism, and Azerbaijani-Palestinian relations, countering Iran through formation of periphery alliances (this time with Azerbaijan) is perfectly built into Israeli strategic planning.

Israel also sticks to a tradition of providing support to Jewish diasporas across the globe. In the Caucasus this foreign policy resource is quite significant. In Georgia, the official statistics from 2012 listed 3,540 Jews living in the country; unofficial records hold it as high as 8 to 12 thousand. In Azerbaijan—where the number of Jews is less transparent—the figure ranges from 9 to 16 thousand people. In many cases, especially in Georgia, citizens of Jewish descend hold influential positions in government and business which represents an opportunity for greater Israeli political and economic engagement in the region.

In a nutshell, Israel’s interests in the Caucasus have three principal dimensions: strategically, as a means of encircling Iran; in the mid-term, as a zone of energy supplies; and in a short-term, as a market for selling high tech arms and ammunition. At the same time these dimensions represent a challenge for the troika of traditional regional players—Russia, Turkey, and Iran—who are very reluctant to let in any outsiders.

Maxim A. Suchkov, a former Fulbright visiting fellow at Georgetown University (2010–11), is currently a contributor to Al Monitor (Russia Pulse) and fellow at the Institute for Strategic Studies (Pyatigorsk).

About the Author

Maxim Suchkov

Maxim Suchkov
EconomyForeign PolicyMiddle EastIsraelCaucasus

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie China

  • Commentary
    China Sells Stability Amid American Volatility

    U.S. unpredictability has allowed China to capitalize on its positioning as the “responsible great power”. Paradoxically, the more China wins the perception game, the more likely expectations will rise for Beijing to deliver not just words but to demonstrate with its deeds.

      Chong Ja Ian

  • Vietnam's Top Leader To Lam meets with young representatives from China and Vietnam participating in the "Red Study Tours" at the Great Hall of the People on April 15, 2026 in Beijing, China. T
    Commentary
    Why Vietnam Is Swinging in China’s Direction

    Hanoi and Beijing have long treated each other as distant cousins rather than comrades in arms. That might be changing as both sides draw closer to hedge against uncertainty and America’s erratic behavior.

      • Nguyen-khac-giang

      Nguyễn Khắc Giang

  • Commentary
    China’s Energy Security Doesn’t Run Through Hormuz but Through the Electrification of Everything

    Across Asia, China is better positioned to withstand energy shocks from the fallout of the Iran war. Its abundant coal capacity can ensure stability in the near term. Yet at the same time, the country’s energy transition away from coal will make it even less vulnerable during the next shock.


      • Damien Ma

      Damien Ma

  • Xi walking into a room with people standing and applauding around him
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Xi Doctrine Zeros in on “High-Quality Development” for China’s Economic Future

    In the latest Five-Year Plan, the Chinese president cements the shift to an innovation-driven economy over a consumption-driven one.

      • Damien Ma

      Damien Ma

  • Commentary
    Malaysia’s Year as ASEAN Chair: Managing Disorder

    Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.

      Elina Noor

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
Carnegie China logo, white
Keck Seng Tower133 Cecil Street #10-01ASingapore, 069535Phone: +65 9650 7648
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.