Follow us on social

google cta
2022-10-31t190215z_567939562_rc2icx923ttp_rtrmadp_3_armenia-azerbaijan-russia-talks-scaled

Azerbaijan exploiting Ukraine distraction to press advantage in Armenian conflict

But that doesn’t mean the United States should try to replace any Russian role there.

Analysis | Reporting | Europe
google cta
google cta

Traffic through the Lachin Corridor — the only route connecting the contested region of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia — has been blocked by Azerbaijani self-proclaimed environmental activists for a fifth day. This closure creates a potential humanitarian crisis for the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh, as they are cut off from medical and food supplies from Armenia, which they are entirely reliant upon.

The roadblocks, which protesters claim are in response to illegal mining practices in the region, represent the latest escalation in tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan in recent months. Most notably, in mid-September, Armenian and Azerbaijani forces clashed both around Nagorno-Karabakh and on the countries’ border, with Azerbaijan escalating the situation by attacking Armenia proper.

Both September’s attacks and the present roadblocks are symptoms of a troubling reality for the Caucasus: that Russian weakness resulting from its struggling invasion of Ukraine has opened the door for renewed conflicts and border disputes in the region. Russia, which has long filled the role of regional hegemon, has stationed peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh and the Lachin Corridor since the devastating Second Nagorno-Karabakh War of 2020.

Azerbaijan is utilizing Russia’s present distraction to press its advantage in its simmering conflict with Armenia. Indeed, the current roadblocks are at least partially aimed at pressuring the small and ill-defined Russian peacekeeping mission, with protesters demanding greater Azerbaijani access to Nagorno-Karabakh and a meeting with the commander of the Russian forces.

For the Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh, conditions will only get worse as long as the blockade persists. Azerbaijan also blocked gas supplies to Nagorno-Karabakh, but following strong international diplomatic pressure recently reversed this decision. But should the roadblocks persist in the long term, there may be few options to resupply the territory, as civilian air traffic in and out of the territory has been blocked since the 1990s. Meanwhile, the de facto government in Nagorno-Karabakh is increasing its calls for an international humanitarian airlift to supply the blockaded territory.

So far, the United States and its international partners have responded by issuing diplomatic calls to end the roadblocks. The U.S. State Department issued a statement via Twitter calling on the “government of Azerbaijan to restore free movement through the corridor.” The EU issued a similar comment, calling on “Azerbaijani authorities to ensure freedom and security of movement along the corridor” given that such restrictions “cause significant distress to the local population and create humanitarian concerns.”

The United States may have a meaningful, if limited, role to play in ending the present crisis and preventing the renewed outbreak of war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Washignton played an important role in bringing the two nations to ceasefire after Azerbaijan’s September incursions, a notable departure from the 2020 war in which Russia brokered the truce.

Yet, as Anatol Lieven and myself recently pointed out in a brief for the Quincy Institute, this does not mean that the United States should make an effort to supplant what security role Russia has left in the Caucasus. The United States is rightly resistant to committing its forces to the region, and this effectively prevents it from serving as security guarantor there.

Instead, the Biden administration should continue its wise course of diplomacy. The United States should work to de-escalate the crises in the South Caucasus through diplomatic means while engaging appropriately with all local actors and stakeholders. If Azerbaijan continues to press its advantage in the conflict through coercive means, especially by military force, the United States and its partners must bring vigorous diplomatic pressure to bear to push the parties back to peaceful negotiations over their territorial disputes.

Editor's Note: Artin Dersimonian was an intern at the Armenian Embassy in Washington in 2018. The Terjenian-Thomas Assembly Internship Program at the Armenian Assembly — which is mentioned in the QI brief on which this article is based — facilitated Dersimonian's internship with the embassy.


Russia's President Vladimir Putin, Armenia's Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev attend a trilateral meeting in Sochi, Russia October 31, 2022. Sputnik/Sergey Bobylev/Pool via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY.
google cta
Analysis | Reporting | Europe
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.