Or it will – depending on what decision the senators will make. And it’s not about the Armenian lobby, to which Azerbaijani media often refers, but it’s about the diplomat himself, who, according to an observer of The Washington Post, Fred Hiatt, put the “special” interests above national ones. Though Hiatt writes that the Department of State recalls Bryza, who has “served with distinction”, the article says nothing about the role of Bryza in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement, although it was his behavior in this area that led to blocking his appointment. Bryza had to face the practical classic cumulative effect: one shouldn’t speak so sharply and unequivocally against the two national problems of the Armenian nation - Genocide and Artsakh - and then wonder why such a brilliant career has to be ruined.

Just a couple of days later The New York Times published the article “Frozen in Time” by Frank Jacobs about Cyprus and Karabakh conflicts. We’ll still revert to Jacobs, but the column in The Washington Post generates certain thoughts. Not once in the current year did in WikiLeaks appear shorthand records from Baku, which did not add pluses to the Aliyev regime. Dispersal of demonstrators and detentions of opposition members is unlikely to help Aliyev remain a “democrat” in the eyes of his American friends. There is one more circumstance to be taken into account: the U.S. considered the situation and realized that in the event she invades Iran, Baku cannot be relied on, and therefore she should deal shortly with Aliyev. Moreover, the U.S. has a reliable ally in the person of Mikhail Saakashvili, who will provide Georgian airfields for the U.S. Air Force bases. According to Hiatt, and it is very important, no U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan will be perceived as a neutral person and he will be given to understand that he is the representative of interests of the Armenian lobby, regardless of what the ambassador really thinks of the Karabakh conflict and the Armenian Genocide.

As for the article in the blog of Frank Jacobs in The New York Times, it quite clearly defines the Cyprus and Karabakh conflicts. In the part devoted to the Karabakh conflict, Jacobs believes that the conflict has a time frame:1988-1994. Proceeding from this logic, what happened afterwards and is happening between Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia and Azerbaijan now is nothing but an attempt of Baku to receive compensation for the lost war. The journalist calls the NKR a de facto republic. In fact, it is the first time Karabakh has been called this way in the American press. The article, among other things, contains one interesting point: Jacobs suggests that the international community recognize Cyprus and Nagorno-Karabakh as political reality of the XXI century. A controversial suggestion, indeed. Hardly will Turkey and Azerbaijan agree to such recognition, but the mere fact that it has been voiced, gives us some hope.

All of these publications to be followed by others pursue one and the same goal - to make Ilham Aliyev change the situation in the country, hold normal elections and little shake his fists. The region and the U.S. would prefer that he behaved more appropriately. But, most likely, Aliyev piously believes that he did everything rightfully and so continues walking the same road of violence and corruption. Obviously, Baku drew no lesson from the sad example of the Arab regimes, but she’d better do so. Ilham Aliyev is different from Gaddafi or Mubarak only in that he was made a head of state by his father. He did not have to win the power and here lies his weakness, which is used by all those who want to overthrow him. Washington knows it better than anyone and following her stick and carrot policy, she has so far been manipulating Azerbaijan. But if and when it comes to sticking, neither oil or gas, nor the millions will save Aliyev. Millions, by the way, have saved no one so far.