The interlocutor of Radar Armenia is Shahan Gantaharyan, an international scholar.

- The USA has announced that it will support Azerbaijan in case of a threat from Iran. Is this statement just one of the contradictions between the two countries, or does it have a deeper meaning related to Russian-Iranian relations?

- I think such statements should be understood purely in declarative terms. I think you mentioned the subtext correctly. There was the Iran-Russia armament in front of the Israel-Ukraine armament, which created tension in the planes of these related countries. However, at the same time, Tehran is going through the experimental phase of unblocking the transit of Armenia from the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea. This is a long-standing project that until now has been blocked by the West, especially the United States. Now, the transition to practical work in Tehran would only have happened with the green light of the USA. It turns out that the announcements and the movements on the ground go in opposite directions.

- Don't such statements from the USA contribute to the strengthening of Azerbaijan's aggressive policy towards the South Caucasus, particularly Armenia?

- Besides, Baku is always ready for aggression whenever the occasion arises. It has two immediate problems: "corridor" and demarcation-delimitation. He realizes that he must implement it before the geopolitical change, which explains the haste. At the same time, it is clear that factors restraining this haste appeared independently of the Armenian factor.

- The USA expresses its support to Armenia in the issue of the settlement of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations; on the other hand, how will such a statement affect the situation?

- If we try to analyze the statements made during the tripartite meeting in Washington, we will notice that negative and positive points were formulated for the Armenian side. First, Washington took a step back, not discussing its previous demand that the Azerbaijani troops leave the sovereign territories of Armenia. On the plus side, Blinken and Price talked about the lengthy process and many disagreements. Price even gave an example of the US-brokered agreement on the maritime boundary between Israel and Lebanon. Those who closely follow that process know very well what a long process in terms of time this example is about. All these are opposed to the Turkish-Azerbaijani haste.

- In this situation, how should Armenia position itself so that it does not have new security problems due to the ambitions of the Iran-Azerbaijan-USA trio?

- There are three main directions for us in this overview. First is Iran's decisive stance in preserving Syunik's Armenianness and identity and not tolerating a corridor for this.

Second, Moscow's task to extend the peacekeeping mission is tantamount to going to new status clarification negotiations or prolonging the issue. Third, the position of the collective West, especially the USA, emphasizes the process's long duration. Considering these circumstances, Armenian diplomacy should work with finesse. The tension of the statements and the events recorded on the ground are moving in different directions.

Hayk Magoyan