Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Opinion

Opinion: None of the US strategic goals in the South Caucasus coincide with the Armenian national interest

19 August 2019

Ahead of next month's visit by prime minister Nikol Pashinyan to the US, Benyamin Poghosyan assesses the potential for US-Armenia relations in this op-ed for commonspace.eu

Relations with the United States are of significant importance for Armenia. Despite the relative decline in the US position as the only world super power, Washington still remains the number one global power in the world. The US is a Minsk Group Co-chair country, actively involved in the Karabakh conflict settlement process, and it exerts great influence in the neighborhood of Armenia. America is also home for the most influential part of Armenian Diaspora, which may play a key role in bringing desperately needed investments into the Armenian economy. It also can be a source for albeit a modest, yet significant, process of repatriation of Armenians from the Diaspora to the motherland, thus alleviating the demographic challenges faced by Armenia.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has perceived its relations with Armenia through the lenses of its overall policy towards the Former Soviet Union and Russia. Armenia is part of the South Caucasus, where the current US administration has three key goals.   

The first is the region's involvement in the policy of "maximum economic pressure" against Iran. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan are bordering Iran, and Georgia also may play a role as an alternative route for Iran towards Europe via Armenia and the Black Sea. The US policy aims at decreasing the region's relations with Iran as much as possible, and securing a free hand in using the region in different kinds of anti-Iranian activities.

The second goal of the current US administration is the facilitation of the launch of the Southern Gas Corridor, which will bring Azerbaijani gas to Europe circumventing Russia, as was the case with Azerbaijani oil delivered through the Baku - Tbilisi - Ceyhan pipeline. The US has much less enthusiasm now regarding the capabilities of Azerbaijan to strategically decrease Europe's gas dependency on Russia, as it transpires that Baku has only the potential to pump into Europe a maximum 20 billion cubic meters gas annually. However, despite the decreased significance of Azerbaijani gas for Europe, its still matters for the US to have alternative routes of gas supply to Europe.

The third factor influencing US policy in the region is the policy of containment and deterrence of Russia. Despite the seemingly warm attitude of President Trump towards Russia and President Putin, the current US administration has adopted a very tough policy towards Russia, putting various new sanctions in place and providing lethal weapons to Ukraine and Georgia. The South Caucasus, as a part of the former Soviet Space, is included in this containment of Russia policy. Washington aims to prevent any possible increase of Russian influence in Georgia and Azerbaijan, and to decrease Russian involvement in Armenia.

How do these three key goals correspond to Armenia's vital national interests?

Given that Armenia has not settled its relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey - and most probably this will not be the case for at least a decade - any deterioration in its relations with Iran, or significant destabilization in a neighboring country, will have serious detrimental effects on Yerevan. Iran, alongside with Georgia, is one of the two land corridors connecting Armenia with the world. The Iran - Armenia gas pipeline, despite the fact that its Armenian part is owned by Gazprom, provides Armenia with a vital alternative for gas supplies. It has 2.2 billion cubic meters annual capacity, enough to cover all of Armenia's natural gas needs. For now, the pipeline is used only to supply gas for electricity. As a result in 2018 Armenia imported some 567 million cubic meters gas from Iran and exported 1 billion 839 million kw hour electricity. Armenia also values Iran's position on the Karabakh conflict. A Shia Muslim country, Iran has a balanced approach, de facto supporting the current status quo. Thus, Armenia can not afford to support US policy towards Iran, and has to maneuver a thin line of not annoying the US too much, and simultaneously, at least preserving the current level of relations with Iran.

The launch of the Southern Gas corridor will have a negative impact on Armenia. It will definitely increase the strategic potential of Azerbaijan, foster the latter's relations with the European Union and the US, and bring additional financial resources which may widen the gap in the level of military expenditure of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Given the fact that Armenia, Azerbaijan and Karabakh appear to be preparing for the next round of large scale hostilities, these developments do not please Armenia.

The containment of Russia policy, with a possible decrease of Russian influence in the South Caucasus, could not make Armenia and Karabakh safer either. Definitely, Armenia should continue its multi-vector foreign policy, not putting all eggs into one basket. The active cooperation with NATO through the Individual Partnership Action Plans, the 2017 Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement with the EU, and the recent intensification of relations with China, are all moves in this direction. However, at least for the upcoming decade, none of them could bring Armenia the minimum level of security guarantees provided by its strategic alliance with Russia. Thus, Yerevan simply cannot participate in any US sponsored anti - Russian policies in the region without jeopardizing the security of Nagorno Karabakh, and possibly Armenia itself. The possible significant decrease of Russian influence in the region will have the same effects.

Thus, none of the US current administration's three strategic goals in the region overlap with Armenia's national interest. Of course, it does not mean that Armenia should not have relations with the US, and should not make efforts to develop them. The main issues for Armenia are the US approach on Karabakh conflict and securing a positive US administration attitude towards bringing American investments to Armenia.

Given the existence of an Armenian community in the US numbering up to two million, concentrated mainly in California and in Boston and DC area, as well as their active lobbying organizations, Armenia has channels to influence both the US Congress and executive branch. The current campaign to prevent the cancellation of the US State Department funding for  demining projects in Nagorno Karabakh is a good example of what can be done.

The September 2019 visit of the Armenian Prime Minister to the US and planned September 22 meeting with the Armenian community of Los Angeles in the city's Grand Park, is a step in the right direction. Given the upcoming 2020 US elections, a manifestation of the level of influence of Armenia's leadership over the Armenian Diaspora in the US could give some leverage to both Armenia and Armenian lobbying in their relations with the legislative, and to some extent to the relations with the executive branch of the US Government. However, the results and effects of this leverage should not be overestimated. It may help Armenia to solve issues on a tactical level, but will not bring Armenia closer to the US strategically. 

source: Dr. Benyamin Poghosyan is Executive Director of the Political Science Association of Armenia and Founder and Chairman of the Center for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan. He contributed this op-ed to commonspace.eu

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security
Trending

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

13 November 2026
Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut