When we speak about Armenia’s upcoming parliamentary elections, public attention naturally turns to the visible political outcome: who will win, which parties or alliances will cross the threshold, how the balance between the ruling party and the opposition may shift, and how the next political cycle will be shaped. These are legitimate questions. Elections are the constitutional mechanism through which power is formed, renewed, challenged, or transferred. Yet elections are never only about the final result. In a democratic society, they are also a process through which the condition of political culture, public debate, and informational resilience becomes visible. In Armenia’s case, this broader dimension is especially important. The campaign unfolds in a society shaped by security uncertainty, post-war trauma, contested perceptions of peace, concerns over sovereignty, external influence, institutional distrust, and social fatigue. For this reason, Armenia’s elections should be examined not only through the ballot box, but also through the public and informational environment in which citizens’ choices are being formed. A democratic election is not complete merely because citizens are formally able to vote. It is complete when, before voting, citizens can orient themselves in an environment of facts, substantiated arguments, political programs, responsible commentary, and public accountability.

Despite the fragile ceasefire, the question for the Gulf has continued to shift towards what comes next. Writing for Arab News, Faisal J. Abbas offered a clear articulation of where Riyadh stands, describing it as a position firmly oriented toward preventing the resurgence of war and achieving the unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and after which, structured discussions with Iran should resume quickly. This is further reflected in the decision to allow the Iranian ambassador to remain in Riyadh while ultimately requiring the military attaché to leave, which should also be noted as a statement in itself. This is alongside full support for Pakistani mediation and consistent calls between Saudi foreign minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan and his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi, both signals that communication channels were never fully closed. However, a more ambitious analysis of Saudi thinking came from Tamer Ajrami, writing for Middle East Monitor, who reported that Riyadh is floating something close to a ‘Gulf Helsinki Act’, which is a framework meant to extend beyond bilateral Saudi-Iranian deals and encompass the wider Gulf and European Union, being built around three practical building blocks: security and non-aggression, economic cooperation and stable energy flows, and verification and implementation. It was argued that Saudi Arabia is stepping forward to lead this collective track, not out of fondness for peace mediation but rather because the cost of the ongoing chaos has become higher than the cost of a deal. Washington is importantly absent from this architecture because, as Ajrami argues, it has already failed. (To read the full briefing, click on the image above.)