In a previous article, I discussed Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s visit to Washington, highlighting its key goals and motives. I suggested that he face crucial questions about his political future and US foreign political priorities in the South Caucasus region. Here, I will outline the range of inquiries Pashinyan likely encountered during his visit. Reflecting on the trip, we can draw several important conclusions.
First of all, understanding President Donald Trump’s foreign policy requires more than just analyzing his previous presidency or his often contradictory statements. For instance, his claims about ending the Ukrainian war quickly or annexing Greenland, as well as his unconditional support for Israel versus his aspiration to bring peace, highlight this complexity. It remains uncertain whether he will pursue peace between Iran and Israel or maintain unwavering support for Israel, and whether he will seek peace through negotiations or impose it by force. Similarly, his comments on reducing aid to Ukraine and the “aid for resources” concept — suggesting a trade of minerals for support — illustrate the need for more clarity. Experts will need more time, and foreign leaders will need direct communication with Trump’s team to fully grasp his foreign policy priorities.
One constant is the “America First” slogan, and other nations will need to adapt to this stance, as Panama, El Salvador, and Colombia have done. Hence, Pashinyan’s urgency to travel to Washington is understandable, as the US and its rules are changing. Among other concerns Pashinyan needed to gauge Trump’s policies towards Iran and Russia to assess his diplomatic flexibility with these countries. Strained Armenian-Russian relations and stagnant Armenian-Iranian ties reflect the Armenian authorities’ efforts to demonstrate loyalty to the West.
Consequently, Pashinyan is now in a challenging position: if loyalty is unnecessary, for instance, amid possible positive changes in Russian-American relations, what course should he take? As we see now, this important question remains open. Washington’s position on the “Crossroads of Peace” concept remains unclear, including its willingness to support its implementation. It seems there was no one in Washington knowledgeable enough to explain the US stance regarding the Strategic Partnership Charter. No one from the Trump team was available to clarify the administration’s position either.
Anyway, given these issues and his need to assess his political future and support from DC, Pashinyan needed to swiftly contact the Trump administration for answers to his critical questions. Although he was not invited to Trump’s inauguration, despite Armenia signing a strategic partnership charter with the US just days earlier, Pashinyan aimed to visit Washington as soon as possible to engage with US political leaders. A timely opportunity arose to attend the International Religious Freedom Summit and the National Prayer Event.
Considering the above circumstances, it’s reasonable to argue that Pashinyan’s visit primarily aimed at something other than the aforementioned religious events. His lack of interest in faith and religion is well-documented, and his accompanying MP, Arsen Torosyan, is known for his negative views on the church and Christianity in general. This reinforces the notion that the religious events were merely a pretext for his urgent trip to Washington.
In the US, even foreign political leaders on personal visits typically receive a brief meet-and-greet with high-ranking officials. Pashinyan too was granted a high-level meeting in line with diplomatic protocols. He briefly met Vice President J. D. Vance. However, due to the US constitutional structure, the vice president doesn’t make independent political decisions but primarily handles tasks assigned by the president. Thus, it can be concluded that Pashinyan failed to meet any significant political decision-maker during his visit to the US.
Pashinyan’s visit to Washington, aimed at securing political support and answers to crucial questions, was largely unproductive for this reason. Additionally, he did not engage with high-ranking members of Congress, such as the Speaker of the House or the Senate leaders, despite visiting Capitol Hill. His visit can be seen as a false start, primarily due to its timing; the Trump administration was still determining its foreign policy priorities.
The lack of meetings with senior officials may have signaled that US representatives had little to convey to Pashinyan at this stage. However, it’s important to note that Washington is still establishing its priorities, and Armenia is not a top concern. This could be one reason that Washington has not yet engaged with Armenia and Pashinyan needs to wait.
Ultimately, Pashinyan returned from Washington without the answers he sought, highlighting significant miscalculations in Armenia’s approach to its relations with the United States.
Originally published at https://mirrorspectator.com/2025/02/11/evaluating-pashinyans-visit-to-washington/
