Armenian PM's moves, Trump's patience wearing thin, and US envoy's stance on Iran Weekly review by Caliber.Az 

Caliber.Az presents another episode of “Sobitiya” (Events) show with Azerbaijani political analyst Murad Abiyev, highlighting the week’s top news stories related to Azerbaijan and other countries.

AZERBAIJAN - ARMENIA

The recent week has been marked by a notable development - if not outright progress, then at least a renewed momentum - in the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia. A meeting of deputy foreign ministers from all three South Caucasus countries took place in Tbilisi. Although no breakthrough decisions were made at the meeting, the event itself can be considered highly significant.

First and foremost, it marks the initial step in a series of confidence-building measures mentioned by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev during the international forum in Baku.   Such meetings are planned well in advance, which suggests that when President Aliyev spoke of confidence-building measures, he was already referring to this upcoming event. This, in turn, indicates that dialogue between the countries has not come to a halt. Moreover, gatherings of this kind help build regional diplomatic experience within the South Caucasus—free from the influence of insincere intermediaries.

It is crucial for Armenia to experience this new and refreshing atmosphere—one untainted by the toxic influence of the faltering French establishment. It needs the opportunity to realize that it is capable of taking independent steps. All of this is genuinely encouraging news. On the other hand, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan once again displayed inconsistency in his actions—though fortunately, his latest move appears more positive than the ones before.

Speaking before the National Assembly, he echoed the position of Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan, stating that Yerevan is ready to sign off on the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group concurrently with the signing of a peace agreement. What stands out here is not so much the timeline—after all, Pashinyan has expressed principled agreement to the dissolution of the Minsk Group—but rather the fact that he initially sidestepped the issue of constitutional reform. 

This issue remains one of Baku’s key preconditions for signing a peace agreement. It is unknown what happened over the course of that day—perhaps Pashinyan was testing public sentiment, or maybe he faced a firm response from Baku—but the following day, upon returning to parliament, he finally addressed the core issue: the reference to the Declaration of Independence must be removed from Armenia’s constitution. On one hand, Pashinyan needs peace to approach upcoming elections with this achievement in hand.

On the other, he is trying to negotiate that peace with Baku in a way that still leaves room for a possible future attempt at revanche—whether due to personal convictions or, at the very least, to secure the backing of nationalist and revanchist segments of the population. Baku’s uncompromising stance on constitutional reform leaves Pashinyan with no alternative but to move forward with the idea of a legally binding renunciation of any territorial claims against Azerbaijan.

We’ll have to wait and see. Pashinyan is known for his inconsistency—especially when faced with changing circumstances. There’s no guarantee he won’t abandon the “Real Armenia” agenda if he senses it could lead to a drop in his approval ratings.  

UKRAINE - RUSSIA

The Russian army continues its assaults along the entire front line. Following ballistic missile strikes on Sumy and Kharkiv—which Moscow justified on military grounds but which resulted in dozens of civilian casualties—President Zelenskyy once again urged Donald Trump to do what he has been reluctant to: help Ukraine. Appealing to Trump’s sense of faith, Zelenskyy added that offering help is "the Christian thing to do." This is hardly a strong strategic move. Even if one assumes that Trump sees himself as a defender of global Christianity, Russia is also, for the most part, a Christian nation.

Moreover, Trump frequently emphasizes his desire to end the bloodshed on both sides. It’s unlikely that appeals to Christian values will lead him to take a more active stance. US special envoy Steve Witkoff publicly outlined, in a rather empathetic tone, Russia's conditions for the inclusion of "five territories" into its jurisdiction, which certainly does not help foster Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's willingness to make progress in negotiations. By the way, he stated that Kyiv had not authorized Witkoff to engage in negotiations regarding Ukraine.   Zelenskyy is hardly in a position to legally formalise the losses, as he understands that in such a case, not only would he fail to be re-elected as president, but he would also bear personal responsibility for such a decision.

At the same time, it seems that progress is being made on a deal involving rare earth metals between Kyiv and Washington. The sides have stated that they could sign the agreement in the near future. It seems that Kyiv has realized that such an agreement would provide a better security guarantee for Ukraine than joining NATO or any similar options. However, this deal will not make Kyiv a more valuable geopolitical asset for Washington than Moscow, as it requires massive investments and time to implement, while Russia is needed by the US right now. The White House is reluctant to let Russia drift toward China.

Understanding this, Moscow, with greater confidence in its ability to continue military operations, is in no rush to make compromises and is presenting the harshest terms. Meanwhile, Trump began to show serious signs of impatience. First, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the parties have only a few days to demonstrate progress, or Washington will cease its mediation efforts.

President Trump was speaking after Secretary of State Marco Rubio commented following talks with European allies that Washington would "move on" if a truce did not seem "doable" within days. "Yeah very shortly," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office when asked to confirm what Rubio had said. "No specific number of days, but quickly. We want to get it done." "Now if for some reason one of the two parties makes it very difficult, we're just going to say: 'You're foolish. You're fools. You're horrible people' -- and we're going to just take a pass," Trump said.

It’s possible that Trump doesn’t want to tie himself to a deal over rare earth metals with Kyiv without first securing Zelenskyy’s approval on the agreement with Russia. Otherwise, the US president would effectively be committing to the side at war with Russia, which he would prefer to avoid. 

The main message appeared to be directed at Kyiv, and it could be interpreted as indicating that even if Moscow sabotaged the deal, it would not necessarily mean that Trump would support Kyiv; rather, it would imply that he would simply distance himself from the situation. At the same time, it could be assumed that the process of Washington's normalization with Moscow would proceed on its own course.  

MIDDLE EAST

Israel continues its operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, Hamas rejected Tel Aviv's proposal for a temporary ceasefire plan and instead offered to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that would end the war. Clearly, this is unacceptable to Israel. Meanwhile, an interesting situation is unfolding around Iran. US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, who is becoming a central figure in global events, stated in an interview with Fox News that the US is willing to accept limited uranium enrichment in the Islamic Republic.

The following day, he reverted to his original stance, insisting that Iran must "halt and dismantle" its nuclear enrichment programme. According to reports from foreign media, these "shifts" in the White House's approach are linked to differing views within President Trump's inner circle. The second round of indirect negotiations between the US and Iranian delegations was held in Rome. The results of the talks were made public. However, there is an impression that Tehran is slowly but steadily aiming to retain its primary advantage – the right to pursue a nuclear programme, which, in a more favorable future, could enable it to take the final step toward developing nuclear weapons. 

In addition, The New York Times published an article stating that during the meeting between Trump and Netanyahu in Washington in early April, the US president rejected the Israeli prime minister's proposal to strike Iran this May. At present, experts are speculating whether this leak serves as a warning to Netanyahu that Washington has its own interests, or if, conversely, it is a message to Tehran — suggesting that while Trump may have rejected the plan, May has not yet arrived, and therefore, he could still change his mind. 

However, the course of the negotiations suggests that Washington is resisting the need to attack Iran until the last moment. The political analysts point to a factor unrelated to the Middle East, noting that, in an effort to keep Tehran within diplomatic frameworks, Washington, much like in the case of Russia, is trying to steer Iran away from a partnership with China. This seems plausible. However, there’s another nuance to consider. A defeat of Iran would significantly strengthen three players in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and, of course, Israel. Despite the tensions among them, the level of their disagreements with one another may be lower than the conflicts each of them has with Iran. 

This means that, in the long run, these countries could come to an agreement on a security system where the US has little to no role. Iran’s factor creates a significant dependence of both the Arab monarchies of the Middle East and Israel on the US. It’s unlikely that Washington would want to free its allies from such dependence. Therefore, a nuclear deal that is at least somewhat beneficial to Tehran is likely to happen. However, as mentioned earlier, much will depend on whose opinion prevails in the White House.