US President Donald Trump, who 24 hours ago gave the Islamic Republic of Iran 48 hours to unblock the Strait of Hormuz, seems to have retreated from his ultimatum.

Trump announced that he had ordered a five-day halt to military targeting of Iran’s energy infrastructure. On his Truth Social page, US President Donald Trump wrote that he is happy to announce that the United States of America and Iran have held very good and effective negotiations over the last two days on a full and complete settlement of hostilities in the Middle East. Trump also noted that he ordered the US armed forces to postpone the attacks on the energy infrastructure of the country for 5 days.

“Based on the spirit and tone of these deep, detailed and constructive conversations, which will continue throughout the week, I have directed the Department of Defense to delay for five days all military strikes against Iran’s power plants and energy infrastructure, contingent on the success of ongoing meetings and discussions,” he wrote.

It became known that there was also a telephone conversation between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi, during which Sergey Lavrov emphasized the inadmissibility of strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, including the Bushehr nuclear power plant, which create unacceptable risks and are full of catastrophic environmental consequences for all countries.

Trump’s announcement was followed by anonymous postings in Iranian media and Telegram channels.

Tasnim, referring to a high-ranking security official, announced.

“No negotiations have been proposed or held. The Strait of Hormuz will not return to its former state, and energy markets will not stabilize.” Another statement was circulated, citing an Iranian Foreign Ministry official, that there will be no talks between Tehran and Washington, and that Trump’s statements are an attempt to lower energy prices and buy time to implement military programs.

There have also been reports that there have been no direct talks, but that Iran has held talks with Middle Eastern partners, agreeing to change the status of the Strait of Hormuz for some partners. However, in general, Iran maintains the logic of continuing the war and advancing its preconditions in the propaganda domain.

168.amin a conversation with Russian orientalist Viktor Nadein-Raevsky said that the content of Trump’s statements changes very quickly, so it takes time to understand their long-term and substantive nature. He believes that Donald Trump’s decision at first glance can be perceived as an attempt to de-escalate the war against Iran.

However, according to him, according to everything, we are not dealing with tension reduction, but with the mechanism of parallel application of pressure and negotiation, which will allow to weaken the intensity of military strikes at the same time.

“The energy crisis that broke out in the world as a result of Iran’s actions is a problem for the United States, which cannot be denied or underestimated. Therefore, with ultimatums and negotiation attempts, the US administration is trying to ease the situation in that area, at the same time to gain time and position itself well.

The pause announced by Washington seems to be an opportunity to start a diplomatic process, but Iran, for its part, seems to deny the fact of direct negotiations, which shows that the contacts between the parties, if they even exist, are not public and mediated. Even if they exist, Iran treats them with great suspicion and mistrust, evaluating the previous two negative experiences of negotiations with the USA. Iran no longer trusts negotiations with the US. Iran understands that Iran’s pressures are yielding certain results, so it is trying to strengthen the position of the dictator.

Tehran’s information response is also predictable. The Iranian side presents the created situation as the result of a good resistance, stressing that Washington had to back down from its threats. This is an important message for a country waging a war, as it allows maintaining the strength of resistance under external pressure,” said Victor Nadein-Raevsky.

He believes that the five-day pause is a transition phase that can develop in different directions, but the most likely scenario is a controlled escalation. “In other words, the parties can continue the military and political confrontation, but try to avoid such strikes that could lead to unpredictable global consequences. The diplomatic window is opening, but it is extremely narrow and temporary. This is also evidenced by the emphasis of the US president that the targeting of energy infrastructures is stopped.

Summing up, it can be said that Trump’s decision does not symbolize a resolution of the conflict or a real de-escalation. It is a strategic pause, the aim of which is to simultaneously reduce international pressure and control economic risks. However, Iran sees success in all of this, perhaps there is some truth in it, but it is too early to make final predictions, because I think this is an intermediate, transitional stage for better positioning,” Victor Nadein-Raevsky said.

—

On March 21 168.am– before and after the September wars. What has changed today and what has not changed, what is legally called “playing” on the public’s memory” published an article in response to Pashinyan’s warning or threat of a new catastrophic war in September, which continues.

And today RA Minister of Foreign Affairs Ararat Mirzoyan stated in a briefing with journalists that the month of September was said to be conditional, meaning shortly after the elections, and that such a perspective could be, Mirzoyan definitely agrees with his political leader.

«We are accused of saying that we are the party of peace, while what others say is so hopeless and dangerous that it will lead to war. This is so true and invulnerable that they come and tell us: well, don’t say that again, because we might not be so successful in the electoral competition.”

To the correct question: why did you decide that they are war forces, he responded briefly. “It is our political right. Do I see an element of blackmail there? No, I don’t. Why are we doing it, we are doing it well, it is our political proposal, and we are not breaking the law.”

In this case, the problem is not whether to break the law or not, let’s say it is a political competition, a pre-election political tactic, the question is: does Ararat Mirzoyan accept that the statement of the opposition or appeal can provoke a war? If so, then we can say that all the famous statements of Nikol Pashinyan before the 44-day war provoked the 44-day war, or at least brought it closer, and there was no shortage of them. Of course, here Ararat Mirzoyan can justify himself that the roots of that war are deep, as he did later.

“Our government did not bring the war, the war was a consequence. the most simplistic and naive step would be to say that this or that caused the war, the war was a consequence. Nowadays, it’s completely different. Yes, it happened in our time. but it is absurd to say that you brought the war. It is a consequence of 30 plus years, including staying within the framework of the wrong political thought, not understanding that the issue had to be resolved and could not be resolved otherwise, etc. RA Foreign Minister continued.

But this claim may also not withstand criticism, because on the one hand, Pashinyan decided to start the negotiations from scratch, on the other hand, he later admitted that it was clear to him from the beginning that “Artsakh will be part of Azerbaijan”, that the negotiations “were about that” from the very beginning.

But you don’t know why, this did not prevent Pashinyan from “evolutionary” regarding the status of Artsakh. make way and “convince” the public that this or that point of view is correct at the moment, which were not about recognizing Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan. In addition, if the 44-day war was the result of 30 years of negotiations, and let’s assume that Pashinyan did not start from scratch, why or why did the diplomacy of Pashinyan’s government fail, that the war started when the ceasefire regime was relatively maintained for two years?

What Aliyev said is the reason? he war days of 2020, early October, had said the following:

“Nikol Pashinyan said, “I have come with new ideas, I have erased everything that happened in the past, give me a chance and time.” I replied: OK. And what happened? After a year, he announced: “Karabakh is Armenia, and that’s it.” Well, let him say now: “Karabakh is Armenia, and that’s it»»:

It is essentially about elevator arrangements.

Can we say that Pashinyan broke the agreement, or at least deceived the public, if we take into account two post-war episodes in particular?

First, on November 29, 2020, Pashinyan on his Facebook of the post had allowed a remarkable wording in it, or rather, a confession.

“At any stage, including during the Turkish-Azerbaijani military exercises, I would go and say to the Turks: let’s resolve the issue without war, they would have said: give a specific schedule when I hand over the territories. If I signed, they would say, “Nikol traitor”, if I didn’t sign, the war would start.” And this despite the fact that one day before the war, through his family newspaper, he denied Turkey’s direct role in a possible war or conflict settlement.

Secondly, after the war, in April 2022, Nikol Pashinyan made another confession: could have “prevented the war and we would have been in the same situation without the casualties.” Of course, there is a question as to which situation happened as of November 9, 2020, or what was described in the handover of 7 regions or the 30-year negotiation packages, possibly the last one, because the words were said in the context of the previous negotiations.

In any case, how correct is Ararat Mirzoyan when he does not talk about the responsibility of their government, particularly in the context of the 44-day war, especially when several foreign ministers have changed after the change of power? After all, the war is waged by the state, why, apart from the army, are there no people responding from other institutions?

By the way, does the current Minister of Foreign Affairs agree with the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Defense and Security of the National Assembly Andranik Kocharyan that the July battles are a negotiation situation to change that harmed the negotiation process.

The same July battles, in the context of which Pashinyan made provocative statements and actions, and perhaps Ararat Mirzoyan thinks that, on the contrary, a serious plan of Azerbaijan failed in those days thanks to our army, which is not fully known.

Let’s not forget that thanks to the 3rd Army Corps in Tavush, we had serious positional improvements in 2019, the logical continuation of which may have been the July battles of 2020 in some sense, and in those days already today the Minister of Foreign Affairs Ararat Mirzoyan It was an enthusiastic post doing

In particular, On August 19, 2019 he first wrote on his Facebook page that: “The security of the gas pipeline entering Armenia is ensured, Chinari cannot be shot at either.” then slightly edited the post: “The enemy has lost the once absolute positional advantage in Chinari sector.”

In the process of border demarcation in Tavush, will we not lose this success, which Mirzoyan recorded with enthusiasm?

Whoever, since the head of the foreign ministry spoke about the war as a consequence, can say what was the consequence of the Azerbaijani advances of 2021-2022, the famous battles of September and, why not, the depopulation of Artsakh in 2023, what was the document of the tripartite declaration of November 9, 2020: a ceasefire, a transitional solution to problems, or… Or what a consequence? is TRIPP, which in the Turkish-Azerbaijani conversation still remains “Zangezur Corridor”, regarding which Baku referred to the November 9 document.

By the way, during his pre-election tour of Yerevan yesterday, Pashinyan suddenly remembered November 9, 2020 of the document about, noting:

“The political elite in RA accused me of treason, but a woman told me that she was grateful that we signed the November 9 paper.”

Of course, maybe the opposition should have targeted the tripartite statement in a different logic, so that its more or less pro-Armenian points would be preserved, but Nikol Pashinyan should not forget that he was the first violator of that document, when he ordered the withdrawal of troops from Syunik a month after its signing, even though the parties were supposed to remain in the positions they occupied after the war. Moreover, before the document expired, the Lachin Corridor was closed and de-blocked, and then Artsakh was completely depopulated, and the Russian Federation was pushed out of the de-blocking process, about which there are several tripartite statements. be signed.

Let’s add to this that Davit Tonoyan, the former Minister of Defense of the Republic of Armenia, after the war had announced որ՝ “The tripartite document of November 9, 2020 referred to the deployment of more Russian peacekeeping forces.” In other words, it was a ceasefire document that was supposed to preserve and strengthen Pashinyan’s power, but it was a different matter that there were points in the ceasefire document that should not have been there or were not specific to the ceasefire document.

Returning to the possibility of a new war, let’s note one more fact. The annual report on the external risks of RA related to 2026 states: “In the long term, the so-called “Western Azerbaijan” and “return of Western Azerbaijanis” talks and accompanying actions promoted by Azerbaijan at the state level are a significantly negative and risky factor for peace building.”

Moreover, the Foreign Intelligence Service records that: After the Washington Declaration, Azerbaijan not only did not reduce, but also significantly intensified this propaganda, which creates significant risks for regional stability, security and long-term peace.

After the Washington Declaration, Azerbaijan not only did not reduce, but also significantly intensified this propaganda, which creates significant risks for regional stability, security and long-term peace.

In addition to this, the attention of the FSA was also drawn to the following:

“Although regional infrastructural and economic programs are not the only driving force for the institutionalization of peace, however, they have great potential, on the one hand, to raise the price of military escalation in the region; on the other hand, to offer the states of the region a strengthening of their own political and economic factor through involvement in these programs.”

In other words, both peace and escalation have a price, the question is which of the parties pays what price, and whether all parties pay a price, and the current authorities have entered into this. From this, the question arises: if the current government does not win, can we consider a possible new war as a result of negotiations that assume unilateral concessions and interests of Pashinyan’s government, following the example of Ararat Mirzoyan?

—

Nikol Pashinyan, with his recent statements about the “new September war” and the need to obtain a constitutional majority in the National Assembly, “reveals the demonic motive of reproducing his power.” 168TVof Revue expressed such an opinion on the air of the program Political scientist Suren Surenyants, chairman of the “Democratic Alternative” party։

According to his assessment, Nikol Pashinyan is “in a panic” because he was presented with the data of closed sociological polls, according to which the defeat of his party in the upcoming elections is almost predetermined.

According to the political scientist, Nikol Pashinyan cannot bring a single fact that would testify that the programs, slogans or statements of any of the three forces he mentioned: “Strong Armenia” led by Samvel Karapetyan, “Armenia” bloc led by Robert Kocharyan, or the “Offer to Armenia” initiative consolidated around Gagik Tsarukyan, contain a risk of resumption of war.

“On the contrary, these forces are so realistic that they did not even include the return of Artsakh citizens in their plans, considering it unreal in this situation, a manifestation of excessive exploitation of people’s feelings.

Secondly, I can say on behalf of our power: “Democratic alternative”, “Prosperous Armenia”, “Offer to Armenia” that we have never said that in case of coming to power, we will abandon the international obligations undertaken by the country. Yes, both in the document of November 9, and especially in the TRIPP project, there are many points that are not to our liking and were criticized by us, but we did not talk about canceling those documents, therefore, swinging a sword against the geopolitical centers, but using their opportunities to improve them,” explained Suren Surenyants.

The political scientist observes, where is Nikol Pashinyan’s claim that “peace is irreversible” if it can be endangered by just one event?

“If that peace can be endangered because of just one election, just one internal political event, then Nikol Pashinyan’s entire campaign bursts like a balloon, which means that there is no irreversible peace. I have the impression that Nikol Pashinyan, talking about the “war party”, is describing, giving the exact epicrisis of pre-war Nikol Pashinyan,” commented the political scientist.

According to Surenyants, Pashinyan is targeting the above-mentioned three opposition forces for three reasons. “He is trying to artificially put everyone in one basket in order to give a green light to repression for state bodies, but in that case he has to consider whether he can digest it or not. Secondly, he is talking about the use of the Moldovan scenario, and thirdly, he is in a panic, that is, he was presented with closed polls, some of which I also know, and he realized that his defeat in the upcoming elections is almost predetermined. is”.

The political scientist considers the emphasis on the need to obtain a “constitutional majority” of the CP in Nikol Pashinyan’s statement more remarkable.

«As a matter of fact, Nikol Pashinyan reveals the demonic motive for the reproduction of his power, that is, he directly implies that he enjoys Aliyev’s patronage in the matter of the reproduction of power, on one condition, if he undertakes to change the Constitution of Armenia in accordance with Baku’s demands. Only in this case, 2/3 is necessary in the parliament.

Ahavasik, as he said in Tavush in April 2024 at the Voskepar school, that “if we do not fulfill these demands of Azerbaijan, there will be a war by the end of the week”, in fact, nothing has changed since August 8, after TRIPP. Now he says: “I am reproducing myself in order to change the Constitution of Armenia at the request of Aliyev”, i.e. “to turn the Republic of Armenia into an Azerbaijani sub-state. if we don’t do it, there will be a war.” Nothing has changed. Do you see that the assurances of the CP members are lies and empty?” Surenyants declared.

According to our interlocutor, Pashinyan’s dry account of what he negotiated is that “either he will continue to be Ilham Aliyev’s ideal vassal, or the country is threatened with war.”

Surenyants emphasizes that the fight is not between the false dilemma of “peace or war”, but between different models of peace.

“This is Nikol Pashinyan’s blackmail. Of course, it is beneficial for Aliyev to have such a government as the current government, that they will fulfill all his demands without opening their mouths, in the end, a joint Armenian-Azerbaijani state will be created on the territory of the Republic of Armenia, which will only be formalistically Armenian, but in reality we will lose the civilizational basis of statehood. But I am deeply confident that in the presence of a serious government guided by state interests, we can manage a number of risks and at least guarantee the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Armenia.

Yes, it cannot happen that any new government will completely neutralize the consequences of the Forty-Four Day War and negotiate from the position of the winner, but on the other hand, any new government can stop the process of continuous, seemingly endless capitulation. The seemingly endless process of capitulation will have to stop somewhere. This is what distinguishes Nikol Pashinyan from other political forces,” adds Suren Surenyants.

The political scientist recalls the well-known story of the Kikuyu in Tumanyan’s fairy tale “The End of Evil”, noting that Nikol Pashinyan has already brought several wars to Armenia as a result of this policy.

“He wants to be hurt. Let me repeat once more: he is not the head of the government of Armenia, he is Aliyev’s six-member or ideal vassal. If I say something wrong, let him explain why he necessarily connects the “war-peace” dilemma with the thesis of the constitutional majority of the Communist Party.

Addressing the voters at the end of the conversation, the leader of the “Democratic Alternative” party announced. “If you want war and the loss of the Republic of Armenia, choose Nikol Pashinyan. War and Nikol Pashinyan are synonymous. I call on the voters to choose the Republic of Armenia and guaranteed peace, for that they can choose any of the opposition parties according to their preference on the ballot.”

Let’s remind that on March 22, while summing up the Yerevan day of intra-party campaign, Nikol Pashinyan announced in a conversation with the party members. “There will be a war in September, and a catastrophic war at that, if the “Civil Agreement” party, I’m not saying wins the elections, does not get a constitutional majority.”

Full interview in the video.

—

168TVof “Trigger” the guest of the program political scientist, deputy director of the Institute of World Military Economy and Strategy of the Higher School of Economics This is Georgi Asatryan.

The program discussed the role of Puritan heritage in the formation of the United States, the idea of ​​a “new Israel” as the basis of American identity, and the possible messianic nature of US foreign policy.

The strategic results of the unleashed Israeli-American war against Iran and the issue of achieving the set goals, the possibility of forming a new model of wars in the 21st century in the form of periodic short-term conflicts, the risks of uncontrolled escalation, as well as the potential impact of the conflict on Armenia and Azerbaijan in the context of threats were also discussed.

Reference was made to the role of Christian Zionism in contemporary world politics, as well as the nature of US international relations, whether they are partnerships or instrumentalization of other countries.

Hayk Derzyan

—

Nikol Pashinyan announced months ago from the podium of the National Assembly that the energy systems of Armenia and Azerbaijan will be connected, today they are already talking about this “solidarity” perspective to bring and unite another hostile state, Turkey. Moreover, they say that they are ready to start these works a day before.

In the context that Turkey has adopted a strategy to boost electricity exports in the coming years, including the South Caucasus markets, to become the energy hegemon of the region, what security risks await Armenia in the case of this cooperation prospect in particular?

168․amin response to this question of Armen Manvelyan, an expert on international and energy issues նշեց․

“Fundamentally, Armenia does not need to synchronize its energy systems with Azerbaijan and Turkey. We have done the same work with Iran and Georgia and there is no need for additional similar synchronization, especially when it is not a secret that these countries are hostile towards Armenia. It’s another thing that they may be friendly towards Pashinyan and his regime, but they are enemy countries towards Armenia and the Armenian people.

In fact, the problem is the following: both the West, the European Union, Azerbaijan and Turkey demand the closure of the Nuclear Power Plant, and now, since the closure of the Nuclear Power Plant can lead to a shortage of electricity with serious consequences, the parties have agreed that in return Azerbaijan and Turkey will start providing electricity to Armenia.

In other words, Armenia will become an electricity-importing state, becoming dependent on Turkey and Azerbaijan, and our entire energy security will be based on their favor: we will have electricity, we will not have it.”

Armen Manvelyan noted that Armenia has a surplus of electricity and can export it.

 

“We have discussed with the Minister of Energy of Turkey the issue of connecting the energy systems of Armenia and Turkey,” TKE Minister Davit Khudatyan stated in a conversation with journalists the other day.

Davit Khudatyan responded to the observation: “Doesn’t he see a risk of security problems?” “The Armenian energy system is connected to the energy systems of Iran and Georgia, we import and export electricity from these countries, and we are going to do the same with Turkey.”

—