�The United States no longer looks at the South Caucasus from the prism of Russia"

Q. The US Senate approved the candidature of Erle D. Litzenberger for the post of ambassador to Azerbaijan. What will be the mission of the ambassador on this post?

A. First things first, it is not a secret that the confidence towards Mr. Litzenberger remains pretty high among the political circles in Washington, and much of it has to do with the fact that the new Ambassador is a respectful career diplomat. With his confirmation to Azerbaijan, the number of career diplomats in charge of 188 U.S. Embassies around the world has reached to 89. 40 other U.S. ambassadors are considered to be political appointments, while the remaining posts (59) are still vacant.

In the American ​diplomatic ​system, certainly since the onset of the post-World War II era, especially as the number of embassies grew with the advent of decolonization and the consequent fourfold increase in the number of independent nations, career diplomats are preferred in the appointment of ambassadors to countries such as Azerbaijan. As a general guideline - in particular, if we are talking about countries with a difficult neighborhood, and/or appear to have a rather fragile independence, or those with poor human rights records, which also suffer from difficult living conditions - the odds are that the ambassador sent there will be drawn from the career ranks. There is also a good chance such ambassadors had previously covered their countries throughout their career, or had served in a neighboring nation, and perhaps already know the local language, along with studies of the issues and circumstances of that country and its region.

In the case of Azerbaijan though, this practice, interestingly enough, had not been followed over the past 10 years, and even had been distorted a little... Thus, the previous administrations when choosing their envoys to Baku, would either rely on a political appointment (Ambassador Morningstar) or they would rather prefer handpicking diplomats with some energy background (such as, Ambassador Bryza, Morningstar, Cekuta), something that would certainly raise eyebrows among many Azerbaijan watchers. With the appointment of Ambassador Litzenberger though, this practice was finally put an end to.

As for the missions of the new ambassador, first and foremost, he is expected to "restore order" in the relations between Baku and Washington, in other words, to bring them in the diplomatic framework. Like I said, Mr. Litzenberger is a highly regarded career professional with longtime experience working with the post-Soviet region in his previous positions - both in Brussels, as well as at the State Department. While as ambassador ​military and security assistance would clearly continue to be a major part of his portfolio, ​there is a believe that he would equally address all other facets of the U.S.-Azerbaijani relationship, including human rights and good governance. It is no coincidence that back in October, during his testimony before the senators, the ambassador used the following expression: "... An important component of the security assistance that we provide Azerbaijan includes training in human rights..." There is no reason to think that his appointment suggests a narrow focus on security alone - or any other specific direction - when it comes to U.S. interests in Azerbaijan. However, it"s not excluded that there will be pressure in Azerbaijan - by the official propaganda machine - to make the resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict central to the relationship. This is the one area in which the Ambassador cannot deliver, given that it is not included, as they say, "in the portfolio" of ambassadors in Baku. This mandate has been given to another diplomat, the US OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair. But...

But if Azerbaijan can use the new Ambassador"s time to improve and strengthen relations, as well as to encourage regional economic development, resolution of NK may become achievable relatively sooner rather than relatively later. In any case, the ambassador to Baku in general represents the policy of the US government. Reports sent by him to Washington in this sense play an irreplaceable role.

Like his predecessors, the Ambassador is a key player in the energy and energy security policy.

But he also appears to view energy politics as a tool for generating regional and even international stability.While energy will remain being "A" top priority for the US in Azerbaijan, but it is never the only priority: issues of governance, economic reforms, political freedoms, and regional stability are also always important. So too are other issues that arise at various times.

Q. Recently, the Stratford think tank wrote that the Trump administration, in order to squeeze Russia in the region in 2019, would take steps to increase its influence in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus. The analysis indicates that attention will be directed, first of all, to Moscow"s close allies in the region, members of the CSTO military bloc and the Eurasian Union. The analysis also says that the White House has set itself the task of establishing close relations with Armenia. How real does it sound? If to believe this, then in what part of this process would Azerbaijan be located?

A. Given the current political dynamics in Washington - we are currently witnessing a new era of divided government - the analysis you"re referring to sounds pretty ambitious to me, as the situation in U.S. foreign policy might change at any moment. A Democratic-led House might question the Administration"s policy in connection with a particular region. However, it"s also the fact that, per the U.S. Constitution, Presidents can play a prominent role in the formation of foreign policy.

Coming back to your question... It is true that the United States no longer views Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the South Caucasus "from the perspective of Russia." These regions are no longer handed to "Russia specialists" like they were before. Just take a look at the records of career ambassadors that are being sent to all three regions. Most of them are happened to be Russia critics, and are interested in building direct relations with these countries they cover - outside of the Russian orbit. And there are reasons for this. The fact is that Washington is increasingly beginning to understand more and more that the war for influence is no longer measured only by Russia"s military operations in its neighborhood. Thus, Moscow also actively engages in meddling in other countries by interfering in the political arena. Russia would and could also pose danger to its neighbors socially, economically, and even by conducting cyber warfare attacks. The United States, in its turn, tells those countries that, instead of being scared, and sheltering under the Russian umbrella, it is better to increase their own defense capability. Otherwise, says Washington, even we will not be able to help you. As a matter of fact, the Trump administration, with its increasing rhetoric on the defense capability of the US" Western European allies, has actually managed to unite those countries against Russia. Washington understands that Moscow is trying to gain respect by fair. The Kremlin"s fingers could be found not only in the post-Soviet region or in Europe but also in Africa, and event across the ocean (there are rumors that Russia wants to reopen its military bases in Cuba).

As for Armenia, last week, just on the same day with Azerbaijan, the US Senate also approved the country"s new ambassador to Armenia. Career diplomat Lynne Tracy, in her speech before the senators did in fact, forecast a close, special relationship with Armenia. She even mentioned the Karabakh problem highlighting that the peace is necessary not only for Yerevan, but for everyone in order to ensure security in the region. As for bilateral relations, Ambassador Tracy, unlike her colleague sent to Baku, had more reasons to speak with great enthusiasm about the democratization of Armenia, oppositional voices in the country, and the opportunities that are promised for U.S. businessmen. In her statement about the strengthening of US-Armenian alliance, she also emphasized the role of Armenian diaspora abroad. Sadly, for ambassadors sent to Azerbaijan such opportunities are equal to zero given the circumstances in the country, although in diplomacy, there is a saying here that hope is the last thing to dye. Therefore, hopes regarding Azerbaijan isn't dead completely, but al least it is in a very deep coma.

Q. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called the US sanctions against his country "economic terrorism". Given the appointment of the ambassador to Azerbaijan, who used to work both at the US mission to NATO, and later at the State Department"s bureau for military-political issues, the Stratfor article, as well as Iran"s alarming statements, one might think that the region is under scrutiny, and there are definitely some plans for the region. What do you think about this? What are US" plans for this region and is there anything that Washington is asking from Azerbaijan for the implementation of its regional plans?

A. The Iranian threat, at this point, poses a formidable test to U.S. strategy in the Middle East, instead of the Caucasus. Soon - sometime in March or April - the Trump administration will announce its next plans for the Middle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia are the countries to watch. It is quite clear that the current leaders in both countries have recently damaged their reputations both at home and abroad, which in itself, complicates Washington"s original Iran strategy as it was heavily relying on those leaders. (As is known, the Israeli leadership has recently faced serious allegations of corruption, and the country is heading towards elections. And Saudi crown prince Muhammad Bin Salman, by his alleged involvement in the murder of a journalist, has not only damaged his own career, but also disappointed the West as it was relying on him when addressing both Iran and Yemen conflicts.) In the coming days, senior US officials, as well as presidential adviser Bolton, Secretary of State Pompeo will visit the Middle East, where they are expected to discuss the Administration"s new Middle-East strategy. As for the sanctions, it is quite possible that during this year, Washington, having strengthened its rhetoric against Tehran, will try to bring Tehran to the negotiating table. Especially noteworthy is the "Iranian Nuclear Agreement" which signed a few years ago: Although the United States has formally withdrew from this agreement, it is still in force.

As for Azerbaijan, Washington, realizing the seriousness of the threat of both Iran and Russia, is interested in helping this country to strengthen its defense capability and independence. However, of course, the expansion of this cooperation, just like we discussed in the case of Saudi Arabia, will very much depend on Baku"s behavior.

Q. USA withdraws its military forces from Syria, despite the discontent of the Pentagon. This suits Turkey. However, it is difficult to say this about Iran and Russia. Moreover, the Kurds in this region do not welcome this decision. Even the New York Times writes that Trump betrayed the Kurds. What purpose do these measures of the US President pursue? How can this process end?

A. As I mentioned it earlier, given the current political stage in Washington, this situation can change rapidly, and is already changing... For example, President Trump team, following outgoing opposition criticism, has already signaled that he might reconsider his withdrawal plan, by leaving a small portion of the military forces behind, or reinstating its "red lines" against al-Assad - that is, even if technically the United States leaves the region, it will in fact reserve the right to be present there. And if the Syrian government resumes using chemical weapons against innocent people, Washington"s response could be devastating.

Regarding the second part of your question, President Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. military from Syria was perhaps, designed for domestic policy. Although the elections to the US Congress are behind us, the presidential election in 2020 has already been unofficially launched. From this point of view, the year 2019 will be dynamic both in the domestic and foreign policy of the United States, as well as in the international political arena ...