Echoes of the American-Azerbaijani tension in Yerevan

Following France, Azerbaijan's relations with the United States have taken a controversial turn due to concerns about a potential military invasion of Azerbaijan on the territory of Armenia 

Assistant Secretary of State James O'Brien, in his testimony before the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs on November 15, regarding the future of Nagorno-Karabakh, assured American lawmakers that Washington has made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions, at the highest levels of contact, that the use of force against Armenia is wholly unacceptable. He stated, "The authorities in Baku have assured us that they have no such intentions, and we are closely monitoring troop movements and any indications of alternative plans. I am confident that the community will work more purposefully towards achieving a resolution."

President Aliyev, following the victorious 44-day war that resulted in the complete liberation of territories occupied by Armenia in the early 1990s, has laid claim to the historical homeland of the Azerbaijani people, which includes parts of present-day Armenia. On his birthday, December 24, 2022, during a meeting with a group of intellectuals from Western Azerbaijan (present-day Armenia), he stated, "The map displayed in this building from the early 20th century once again attests that Western Azerbaijan is a historical Azerbaijani region, and the names of cities and villages in this region have Azerbaijani origins. It is well-known that the Azerbaijani people have resided in the territory of present-day Armenia throughout history."

This statement follows his earlier assertive declaration when he raised the Azerbaijani flag in the liberated city of Kelbajar on August 17, 2021: "With the opening of the Zangazur corridor, we will return our citizens to Zangazur. Such a program exists, and it is natural. Our citizens were forcibly expelled from the territory of Armenia, not only from Zangazur but also from Sevan. They have the right to live on the land of their ancestors. We have left this for the next stage."

Official historical accounts draw attention to the status quo of the Caucasus region becoming part of Russia in the early 19th century when the Russian Empire coerced Azerbaijani khanates, including Iravan and Karabakh, into accepting the protection of the Russian Tsar. The toponymy and ethnic composition of that time indicate a 95% Azerbaijani presence.

Notably, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Iranian officials, particularly those of Azerbaijani ethnicity, raised the notion of reuniting the South Caucasus regions that separated in the 19th century with Iran. Baku, in response, has its own aspirations for the reunification of a significant portion of Iran, fostering the idea of a Greater Azerbaijan. While President Aliyev, who considers himself a descendant of the medieval ruler of Agk-Koyunlu, Uzun Hasan, whose grandson Shah Ismail Khatai founded the powerful Safavid state, a precursor to modern Iran, does not openly assert such claims, his administration underscores this historical connection through monument installations and exhibitions. These mutual claims continue to cast a shadow over Iranian-Azerbaijani relations.

But let us return to the heart of the matter: Is President Aliyev planning an attack on Armenia to reunify with Nakhchivan, which is separated from the rest of Azerbaijan by the 42-kilometer Zangazur corridor, and to regain enclaves in western Armenia, providing strategic control over communication routes emanating from Georgia? The question is rhetorical. If we extrapolate from the lessons of the 44-day war and the counter-terrorism operation on September 19, we can anticipate that these developments are a response to Yerevan's refusal to peacefully return the occupied territories to Azerbaijan and acknowledge its territorial integrity.

The consolidated calls and preventive warnings from the West about the undesirability of an Azerbaijani invasion likely stem from the reluctance to continue the military trajectory in the protracted Armenian-Azerbaijani dispute. Sequentially, France, Germany, the European Union, and now the United States are making concerted efforts to prevent the evolution of such an unwanted scenario.

In essence, if we carefully analyze Washington's diplomatic efforts and those of its allies to solidify the current territorial status quo and compel both sides to sign a comprehensive peace agreement, Armenia appears to be the primary focus. This is driven by the logic of events, as its territory is under the threat of invasion. Therefore, the message from the West can be interpreted as follows: "We will defend Armenia only within the framework of the established status quo, but we cannot guarantee this without a peace agreement."

This is evident in the reactions of the conflicting parties. Armenia, more than anyone else, has begun to discuss the historical milestone and the historical prelude to a peace treaty. The Armenian leadership used the OSCE PA platform in Yerevan to emphasize its commitment to peace. Baku, in the face of pressure from the United States and European partners, has adopted a demonstratively confrontational stance, which does not seem to cause much irritation in Washington, Brussels, Paris, and Berlin, as they delve into the intricacies of shaping a new long-term peace format for Armenian-Azerbaijani relations.