In an interview on AnewZ TV, Ahmad Hashemi discussed the shifting dynamics of U.S.-Azerbaijan relations, highlighting a bipartisan legislative effort in the U.S. Congress to repeal Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.
Passed in 1992, Section 907 originally banned direct U.S. aid to Azerbaijan. Today, critics argue the legislation is outdated and fails to reflect modern geopolitical realities. The new repeal bill has gained significant traction, securing prominent Republican co-sponsors such as Congressman Abraham Hamadeh.
As an “America First” Republican, Congressman Hamadeh’s leadership on this issue signals that the Trump administration views Azerbaijan as an essential strategic partner. In discussions with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Hamadeh emphasized Azerbaijan’s unique geographical significance—neighboring both Iran and Russia—and its critical role in global connectivity, energy, and trade. The initiative underscores a mutual desire between Baku and Washington to forge stronger strategic ties.
Simultaneously, prospects for regional stability are rising through the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), also known as the Zangezur Corridor. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia are seeking a historic rapprochement to secure lasting peace. Following the restoration of its territorial integrity, Baku is eager to finalize a deal. Meanwhile, Armenian society signaled its mandate for peace following the June 2026 parliamentary election victory of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s party, opening the door for comprehensive agreements with Azerbaijan and Türkiye.
Washington shares this enthusiasm. While President Trump remains heavily focused on managing conflicts with Iran, the administration is closely monitoring the South Caucasus peace process. Securing a diplomatic breakthrough over the TRIPP corridor offers President Trump a vital opportunity to achieve a major foreign policy victory and cement his legacy as an international dealmaker.
Ahmad Hashemi’s Brief Take on The Emerging US-Iran Agreement:
The Iran War Was the Most Significant Foreign Policy Failure of the Trump Administration.
The preliminary US-Iran framework agreement does not signal the birth of a new, stable, peaceful Middle East; it merely pauses a hot war—at least for the time being—while the Cold War continues. The core drivers of regional instability—Iran’s nuclear enrichment, its ballistic missiles, proxy networks, and the security of the Strait of Hormuz—remain insufficiently addressed. This outcome represents a massive strategic defeat for both the United States and Israel. Washington has apparently granted Iran substantial sanctions relief and oil-export access—concessions that did not exist prior to the conflict—while receiving absolutely nothing substantial in return.
5 Core Reasons for Pessimism
Israeli Sabotage: Israel views this deal as an existential threat to its hegemonic ambitions in the region and will actively work to dismantle it.
Irreconcilable Demands: The foundational geopolitical goals and expectations of Washington and Tehran remain fundamentally opposed.
Vanishing Incentives: With the US midterm elections approaching this November, time favors Iran. Tehran has little motivation to offer meaningful concessions now. Paradoxically, the Iranian regime thrives in an environment of chaos and instability.
Empowerment of the Regime: The unnecessary war inadvertently fueled nationalistic sentiments and strengthened the Islamic Republic, neutralizing Iran’s domestic civil society and pro-democracy movement while reinforcing a brutal regime.
Dual Expansionism: A comprehensive, lasting peace in the Middle East is impossible while both regional powers remain ideologically expansionist—Iran via the export of its Islamic Revolution, and Israel via its biblically motivated territorial annexation ambitions.
Shifting Geopolitical Implications
1. Diminished US Global Standing
The conflict exposed severe limitations in American power. Washington failed to bring Iran to heel, secure the Strait of Hormuz, push Saudi Arabia into a hot war, or enforce normalization with Israel. Furthermore, expensive US defense technology struggled to counter cheap Iranian missiles. The US failed to rally NATO or European allies to its cause, could not dissuade China from backing Tehran, and could not stop Gulf states from cutting private, bilateral deals with Iran to insulate themselves from conflict.
2. Israel’s Strategic Overreach
While Israel successfully drew the US into a direct confrontation with Iran, it achieved none of its strategic goals. There was no regime change, no Arab-Israeli military coalition, and no new territorial annexations in Lebanon. Instead, Israel faced public pushback from President Trump after striking Beirut and was forced into an agreement it fiercely opposed. Consequently, American public opinion is shifting, increasingly blaming Tel Aviv for dragging the US into an unnecessary war. This dynamic risks generational damage to the bilateral relationship, especially given Israel’s systemic reliance on US funding, weaponry, and diplomatic cover.
Domestic Political Friction & Historical Context
President Trump is going to have a hard time selling any agreement with Iran as a victory that is worth the blood and treasure spent on it. Many influential “Israel First” figures have already turned against it. The internal American battle over this deal will be fierce. Hardline pro-Israel decision-shapers and neoconservatives within the US—including Mark Levin, Laura Loomer, and Lindsey Graham—are furious and will actively attempt to abort any future framework. Meanwhile, “America First” voices like former counterterrorism official Joe Kent argue that the only way to ensure the ceasefire holds is to completely cut military and intelligence assistance to Israel.
Simultaneously, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is poised to openly challenge President Trump. Netanyahu needs to oppose peace and deliberately prolong wars to evade his corruption trials, even if he has to commit war crimes and genocide in the process. Facing weak domestic poll numbers ahead of Israel’s October elections, a desperate Netanyahu will likely resort to high-profile defiance of Washington to salvage his political standing, mirroring his historic 2015 address to the US Congress against the Obama administration.
The Cost of Undoing the JCPOA: Ultimately, this conflict underscores the tragedy of ditching the 2015 JCPOA. The original nuclear deal was a landmark diplomatic achievement that contained Iran’s nuclear ambitions. However, driven heavily by animosity toward Obama—because he is Black and his middle name is Hussein—and a political obsession with erasing his predecessor’s legacy, Trump nixed that agreement. As a result, the US has incurred massive global economic costs only to settle for a far weaker, deeply flawed agreement that leaves a brutal Iranian regime rewarded and firmly in place. This stands as the most significant foreign policy failure of the Trump administration.
Ahmad Hashemi discussed the prospect of a US-Iran deal and other geopolitical developments regarding Middle East tensions on AsiaOne TV, focusing specifically on the relationship between Washington and Tehran. A diplomatic breakthrough seems near as Pakistan confirms a finalized draft agreement aimed at ending the conflict between the US and Iran. However, sharp divisions over technical details and enforcement mechanisms continue to threaten the fragile process.
Key Points of Discussion
Iran’s Stance on Compliance: Iranian Parliament Speaker Qalibaf warned that commitments must be upheld without excuses. This statement aims to pressure Washington regarding compliance. The Iranian regime remains skeptical, worried that negotiations could serve as a cover for future military strikes.
The “Israel First” Obstacle: “Israel-first” politicians, such as Senator Lindsey Graham, and highly influential pro-Israel think tanks in Washington, D.C.—such as WINEP, UANI, JINSA, and the FDD, and other neoconservative, pro-Israel, and “forever-war” centers of power—are not interested in Pakistan’s mediating role. They have raised various excuses, including questioning Pakistan’s reliability as an ally and mediator, even dragging up past issues like Osama bin Laden to argue that negotiation and mediation efforts should stop. Neoconservative politicians and the right-wing government in Israel oppose this round of diplomatic efforts entirely. They reject giving diplomacy a chance, believing instead that war is the primary tool in the US national security and foreign policy toolbox. Consequently, they actively oppose any mediation efforts or diplomatic breakthroughs.
Nuclear Issues and Enrichment: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi suggested a phased approach, deferring sensitive issues like uranium enrichment and stockpiles. However, Iran is highly unlikely to relinquish its 60% enriched uranium stockpile, viewing it as a critical bargaining chip and a matter of national pride.
Misinformation Campaigns: Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif warned of an ongoing misinformation campaign targeting the peace deal. Prominent neoconservative and pro-Israel figures in Washington are viewed as opponents of this mediation, preferring military options over diplomacy.
Leadership and Final Decisions
Despite divisions within Iranian society, a centralized authority oversees the nation’s strategy. If a deal is authorized by the leadership, the relevant officials have the mandate to execute it, ensuring that internal opposition will not block final policy decisions.
Ahmad Hashemi, Director of the Middle East and Central Asia program at the Global Policy Institute, discussed the expanding cooperation between Baku and Washington.
Geopolitical Importance of Azerbaijan
Strategic Location: Azerbaijan is uniquely positioned between Russia, Iran, and Central Asia, making it the only nation bordering both key US adversaries (Iran and Russia).
Middle Power Diplomacy: The country actively promotes dialogue and acts as an independent norm entrepreneur bridging Eastern and Western interests.
Energy Security and Transit
Alternative Energy Routes: Azerbaijan provides Europe with vital alternative energy pathways, especially critical given ongoing geopolitical tensions in the Persian Gulf region.
The Zangezur Corridor: Often referred to by US leadership as the “Trump Route for Peace and Prosperity,” this developing transit route aims to strongly enhance East-West trade, connectivity, and regional stability.
Central Asian Connectivity: The nation offers landlocked Central Asian countries an essential independent route to the global market, helping them reduce their reliance on Moscow and Beijing.
The dialogue highlights a shifting relationship, moving beyond traditional energy partnerships toward comprehensive strategic and diplomatic integration.
