Fanaticism in Congress: When ideology overrules diplomacy Sherman’s anti-Azerbaijani campaign

Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman, who attempted to push through an anti-Azerbaijani provocation in the U.S. Congress, has suffered a failure. The House Foreign Affairs Committee rejected two amendments by this Democratic lawmaker, which sought to prohibit the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation from supporting any projects in Azerbaijan and to deprive the U.S. President of the authority to waive Section 907 of the “Freedom Support Act,” which bans American aid to Azerbaijan.

According to Sherman, the amendments were supposed to remain in effect “until it [Türkiye] ends its blockade of Armenia. We should not be developing the economy of Azerbaijan until it releases all Armenian prisoners of war.” These initiatives by the pro-Armenian congressman were nothing but blatant falsehoods designed to mislead uninformed Americans. In reality, Türkiye is currently engaged in active negotiations with Armenia to open the border, while the separatist leaders awaiting trial in Baku stand accused of committing war crimes — offences prosecuted in all countries, including the United States.

What goals is Sherman pursuing with his anti-Azerbaijani activity in Congress, and who is guiding him? Foreign experts answer these questions for Caliber.Az.

According to an Israeli international law expert, Doctor of Law, and Pittsburgh University scholar, Rabbi Mikhail Finkel, Sherman — a descendant of Russian-speaking Jews who emigrated to the United States — like many Jews around the world, including in America, has distanced himself from his own religion and found a new one.

“For secular, assimilated, atheistic Jews in the U.S. and around the world, this religion is hyper-liberalism. These are like neo-Trotskyists, eager to defend all the poor and oppressed in the world. Very often, these are completely imaginary categories of people, yet they defend them nonetheless,” the expert noted.

According to him, today there are many such ultra-liberal left-wing Democrats, including Jews, who defend Palestinians — even all terrorist movements. But first and foremost, as in Sherman’s case, these are people who actively push the LGBT agenda and the agenda of defending Armenians, particularly the Armenians of Karabakh.

“In Sherman’s and his like-minded associates’ view, the greatest crimes and injustices were committed against these Armenians. If we analyse the speeches and statements of this congressman and his allies, we will see terms like ‘ethnic cleansing,’ allegedly occurring in Karabakh, and so on, and so forth. Everything we see and hear — all these clichés — he and his people, his party allies, apply to Israel and many other situations as well,” the expert emphasised.

According to him, it should be understood that, in addition to ideology — which plays a very significant role in the case of American Democrats — there is also a financial component at work here.

“Let’s analyse Sherman himself. He is from California, where in Los Angeles and other areas there is a huge Armenian lobby, immense in terms of numbers, influence, power, and money. Armenians play a major role in financing Hollywood, business, and even the Democratic Party, which they almost all support, since it has traditionally recognised the ‘genocide’ and is a party supportive of, and affiliated with, Armenia — unlike the Republicans, who traditionally support Azerbaijan. Therefore, there are both business interests and an appeal to the electorate, since many of Sherman’s voters are of Armenian ethnicity, though they do not live in Armenia and are unaware of the realities there. They are, so to speak, much bigger ‘patriots’ and far more radical than Armenians living in Armenia itself.

So here we have several factors: first, the ideological; second, the business factor; and third, the political factor.

However, Sherman’s role and influence should not be exaggerated. He was serving Armenian interests, but he failed in his mission. Today, Congress is Republican — Republicans set almost the entire agenda. His lone voice resonates within this majority, advancing his political and business gains while following his ideological, practically religious, ultra-liberal convictions.

The task of this Democratic congressman is to demonstrate to his electorate — most of whom are Armenian — that he champions Armenia’s interests and fights for the release of separatist leaders. He attempts to do this by applying pressure, even if only verbally, publicly proclaiming his attacks on Türkiye and Azerbaijan. As long as he does this, he continues to receive votes, funding for his political activities, donations, and similar support — staying in favour.

Moreover, Sherman genuinely believes in all of this. Essentially, this is a condition called ‘political fanaticism, ’” concluded Finkel.

Meanwhile, American analyst, geopolitical and security expert, and editor-in-chief of The Washington Outsider, Irina Tsukerman, noted that Sherman is pursuing a course that clearly contradicts the current policy of the U.S. government, which focuses on advancing the peace process in the South Caucasus and maintaining functional channels with Türkiye. The amendments he proposed link U.S. economic and defence tools to strict political conditions for Ankara and Baku.

In doing so, he raises the threshold for decisions by the White House and turns any future support for these countries into a state of permanent conditionality. For an administration concentrating on diplomatic resolution and supporting allied tracks with Türkiye within NATO and the regional architecture, this appears as an attempt to impose a more confrontational path.

“The conceptual framework of Sherman’s initiatives is simple. He seeks to show voters and active supporters that Congress can compel Ankara and Baku to change their behaviour through financial and legal levers. In his logic, humanitarian and legal demands should serve as a preliminary filter for any engagement. This approach directly contradicts the pragmatism of the U.S. government, which prefers to negotiate steps in verifiable stages and tie incentives to concrete progress in talks between Yerevan and Baku, as well as coordination with Türkiye on security issues,” the expert stated.

According to her, the diaspora factor gives Sherman’s initiatives additional momentum. Around ANCA, a stable support network has formed, often taking a harder line than official Yerevan. This environment insists on maximalist demands regarding so-called “prisoners,” accountability for the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, and the establishment of sanction regimes. As a result, congressmen like Sherman often end up aligning more closely with diaspora positions than with the cautious tactics of the Armenian government, which tries to keep space for deals and not close doors to normalisation.

“Linking Türkiye and Azerbaijan into a single package may be convenient for political mobilisation, but it carries diplomatic risks. Such a construct simplifies public debate but complicates the negotiation mechanics over borders, communications, and security guarantees between Yerevan and Baku. The stricter and more all-encompassing the conditions, the higher the likelihood that Ankara and Baku will begin seeking alternative support from actors uninterested in a Western-led settlement architecture. This creates a field in which the positions of Iran and Russia are strengthened, while U.S. influence is reduced.

The U.S. government bets on a sequential peace process and the maintenance of channels with Türkiye, seeing this as the only realistic path to sustainable solutions. In this context, Sherman remains a politician consciously acting in opposition to the course of the U.S. administration. His approach caters to the demands of a segment of the electorate and diaspora organisations. But a sustainable outcome is only possible when moral clarity is integrated into a practical roadmap. Otherwise, normative rigidity will become a tool for externally weakening American influence,” concluded Tsukerman.