"The attack on the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Iran is a great act of provocation and terrorism."

Fatma Yıldırım, a member of the Milli Majlis, said this in her statement to APA.

Fatma Yildirim said that the Iranian state is also responsible for the crime: "Because it is the duty of every state, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, to ensure the security of diplomatic corps at a high level.

The state of Azerbaijan ensures the security of the embassy of Iran in our country at the appropriate level, and it is the duty of official Tehran to protect the security of the embassy of Azerbaijan in this country.

But the crime that happened shows the opposite.

Recently, both officials and separate branches of the government have been campaigning against Azerbaijan in Iran.

As a result of this position of official Tehran, our mutual relations have become cold.

Following all this, the deadly attack on our embassy in Tehran is a step towards further straining the relationship between the two countries.

in our region of Azerbaijan,

as well as its growing position in the world worries Iran.

Therefore, official Tehran is trying to hinder peace and cooperation initiatives of our state in the region.

Against the background of all this, the attack on our embassy in Tehran raises serious questions."

The deputy noted that the person who committed the crime has already been arrested: "However, the statement of the Tehran police that this crime was committed on the basis of personal relations is not convincing at all.

In fact, this statement is nothing more than an attempt to cover up the real reasons for the crime.

We demand that the causes of this terrorist incident be investigated objectively and all criminals receive their deserved punishment."

The deputy of the Milli Majlis, Hikmet Babaoglu, also believes that the terrorist act committed against our embassy in Iran is an attack on Azerbaijan and should be answered accordingly: "Official Iran should give a reasonable, precise and logical explanation regarding the attack against the embassy of Azerbaijan in Iran.

According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations adopted in 1961, diplomatic missions, their personnel and other persons involved in the diplomatic service are persons with special privileges and immunities.

Since Iran has joined this Convention, it is obliged to protect the security of the diplomatic mission.

However, the terrorist incident shows that this commitment has already been violated, and official Iran must give a satisfactory explanation to this issue.

But the point is that this incident is not only between two countries,

can lead to very dangerous escalations in the context of events in the region as a whole.

It should be taken into account that this is not the first terrorist incident against the official representations of Azerbaijan.

Some time ago, terrorism was again organized by radical groups of Iranian origin against the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Great Britain.

At that time, Iran did not give a satisfactory and logical explanation for the committed crime, and considered the incident as an independent act of radical groups.

Therefore, if this incident is connected with the activities of any sect, religious or terrorist groups, this explanation will not be satisfactory either."

this is not the first terrorist event organized against the official representations of Azerbaijan.

Some time ago, terrorism was again organized by radical groups of Iranian origin against the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Great Britain.

At that time, Iran did not give a satisfactory and logical explanation for the committed crime, and considered the incident as an independent act of radical groups.

Therefore, if this incident is connected with the activities of any sect, religious or terrorist groups, this explanation will not be satisfactory either."

this is not the first terrorist event organized against the official representations of Azerbaijan.

Some time ago, terrorism was again organized by radical groups of Iranian origin against the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Great Britain.

At that time, Iran did not give a satisfactory and logical explanation for the committed crime, and considered the incident as an independent act of radical groups.

Therefore, if this incident is connected with the activities of any sect, religious or terrorist groups, this explanation will not be satisfactory either."

The deputy stressed that the Azerbaijani side definitely demands a precise, clear and logical explanation from official Iran: "The events in the region are already very complicated.

Until now, the non-constructive and radical positions of Iranian officials regarding the possible peace and opening of communications in the region, and sometimes even more radical views than Armenia, suggest that there may be a connection between certain institutions of the Iranian regime and the perpetrators of this incident. .

Therefore, this issue should be clearly clarified.

It should be taken into account that such events can lead to very dangerous escalations not only in the context of the relations between the two countries, but also in the context of the events taking place in the region as a whole.

This can completely destroy the conditions of peace in the region.

The terrorist act committed against the Azerbaijani embassy in Iran is actually a terrorist attack against Azerbaijan.

All cases related to the issue should be studied to the smallest details, Azerbaijani experts should be involved in the investigation process, and the Iranian side should give an official guarantee so that similar incidents do not occur.

Otherwise, Azerbaijan reserves the right to adequately respond to the criminal incident.

As far as the rumors spread by Iran about who the killer is and how the incident was committed, this is simply to avoid responsibility and manipulate the incident.

The fact that the terrorist is Yasin Huseyzade or any Armenian has nothing to do with the essence of the issue.

These fictitious means do not reduce official Tehran's accountability and responsibility under international law.

On the contrary,