Opinion: There are two distinct groups of US ambassadors with differing views on Armenia.

According to Armenian sources, the abrupt removal of Evans from his position was allegedly due to his vocal support for recognizing the Armenian genocide.

Evans himself revealed during an oral history interview that he had clashed with Daniel Fried, the State Department Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, who accused him of obstructing the President’s stance on the Armenian Genocide, ultimately leading to his dismissal. Some have suggested that Turkey, a significant US ally in the Middle East, may have exerted pressure on the Department of State to remove Evans based on his personal beliefs and statements.

In our opinion, the current US Ambassador to Armenia appears to lean more favorably towards Azerbaijan. The ambassador has issued a clear and unequivocal statement that reflects the official American position on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and the ongoing negotiation process. The US State Department’s stance seems firmly aligned with one side of the issue, making any discussion of potential diplomatic and political pressure the US government could exert on Azerbaijan, such as imposing sanctions, seemingly irrelevant. The Biden administration’s primary focus is to expedite an agreement, which some perceive as rushed, incomprehensible, and unsustainable, in order to present it as a global achievement in peacemaking. However, critics argue that by doing so, the administration may unintentionally enable ethnic cleansing and/or cultural destruction of the indigenous Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. Some believe that President Biden has room for improvement in handling this complex situation.