In a month’s time, token Republican Donald Trump is set to assume the US presidency. It is too early to speculate about the specific strategic priorities of his foreign policy, as the process of setting and pursuing the international agenda is complex and involves a considerable number of players and vested interests. The United States was built by a national aristocracy, and its very well-being is determined by the balance in the complex system of interplay between actors ranging from the military and industrial complex to distinct religious and ethnic factions. It is not so important who the elected president of the United States is, what matters is his entourage – the administration, where every (Congress-approved) candidate invariably represents a specific interest group. Many of those Trump hastily announced as nominees for various positions may not be endorsed. This has always been so, and Trump’s second presidential term would hardly be an exception.
Yet this article is not concerned with the peculiarities of the American political system, but rather with the plausible developments of Washington’s foreign policy in the next four years, along with its risks and emerging opportunities. There is no fundamental shift foreseen, as the strategic purpose of the American state – the preservation of global hegemony – is unlikely to be revised or challenged. In this regard, one should not expect a substantial détente in international tensions. Apparently, isolated frontlines (like the Ukrainian one) may be set on pause or dismissed due to losing even tactical relevance, but at the same time new ones may emerge. First and foremost, this applies to the Middle East, a region that plays a key role in establishing a system of deterrence against China, the only superpower with the requisite value (ideological) and asset base to topple Uncle Sam from the royal throne.
The Republican evangelical aristocracy and its anchor major interest groups have been historically orientated towards supporting Israel as the pivotal ally and watchdog of American interests in the region. The influence of Evangelicals (which has grown since the 1980s) in this region is so significant that even the Democratic administration in the face of Joseph Biden (representing Irish and Catholic aristocracy) has not managed to stop Israel’s leadership from reckless aggressive policies that continue to claim tens of thousands of Palestinian civilian lives. Trump is one of the most vocal supporters of bolstering the Jewish state. The Adelson family has been a key contributor to his political career since 2015. Sheldon Adelson was a major donor to the Republican Party and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. After his death in 2021, his wife, Miriam, has continued supporting Israel’s cause. During his first presidential term (2016-2020), Trump recognised Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
He is certain to begin his new term by reaffirming his support for Israel. Considering the geopolitical appetites of the current leadership in Tel Aviv, one can presume that a major conflagration in the Middle East is well within reach. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is subject to an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court, will look to max out Trump’s presidency. The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria effectively cuts Iran off from its proxies in Lebanon (Hezbollah), enabling the Israeli side to take operational control of Lebanon and begin preparations for a future confrontation with Tehran (a key ally of China).
Such a configuration presents ample opportunities for Azerbaijan and fatal threats to Armenia. Official Baku faces a real shot at getting a mandate to occupy Syunik for the sake of organising critical infrastructure against Iran. There is no doubt that Ilham Aliyev will seize the moment and will be able to reach an agreement with Netanyahu and Trump, especially since their role in the military aggression and occupation of Artsakh in 2020 is far from negligible. All the more so because Armenia’s ambassador to the United States, Lilit Makunts (former English tutor to the Pashinyan family) in the midst of the presidential campaign, on behalf of her boss, eagerly endorsed Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, whom Trump had a particular personal dislike for. And there is no doubt whatsoever about the good memory of Trump and his advisers. Even if this were not the case, the Azerbaijani side would certainly not refrain from reminding him of that.
Pashinyan’s government, now devoid of its patrons in Washington, will also be willing to surrender Syunik (perhaps through a staged war, albeit one involving actual deaths of Armenian soldiers and officers) in exchange for backing the extension of its power. Moreover, for Pashinyan, it would also imply an opportunity to excuse further unilateral concessions to Aliyev, who demands complete demilitarisation of Armenia’s armed forces, amendments to Armenia’s Declaration of Independence, the ‘return’ of Azerbaijanis to their places of residence on Armenian territory and the surrender of Syunik (commonly framed as opening the ‘Zangezur corridor’). One should not act surprised if in the nearest future Pashinyan goes live on Facebook and announces that if we had surrendered Artsakh, which was only essential for Russia to control Armenia, earlier, and had agreed to Aliyev’s demand to abolish the Declaration of Independence and put the memory Armenian Genocide behind us, then Syunik would still be Armenian. We stand alone in the face of the storm that will engulf anyone who, rather than reflecting and taking action, opts to sit idly in a cosy café in the centre of Yerevan, admiring the lavishly decorated Christmas tree and bustling Christmas market. Time is running out; we must come to our senses, take responsibility, and work to minimise the fallout from the impending disaster. It applies most notably to those who hold authority and respect in the Armenian world. The generations to come will memorise everything, both their actions and inaction.
