Religion and Foreign-Policy Realism

Last month, Armenia and Azerbaijan initialed a draft peace framework at the White House—brokered with quiet but significant involvement by the Trump team and some U.S.-based Christian advocates. The agreement, though not yet signed, reflects an unusual blend of foreign policy realism and faith-based diplomacy, a convergence we don’t often see in contemporary international affairs.

On the one hand, the draft reflects the logic of strategic interest. Armenia, reeling from the loss of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) and facing the very real threat of renewed Azerbaijani aggression, accepted significant concessions—formally abandoning its claim to Artsakh and allowing the development of a U.S.-secured transit route through its southern territory. In exchange, Azerbaijan appears to have dropped its demand for an extraterritorial corridor in Armenia—one of the thorniest obstacles in past negotiations—and agreed to a framework of reciprocal transit rights. The U.S., for its part, gains a foothold on an increasingly critical East–West trade route, without committing troops or giving long-term security guarantees.

But the agreement wasn’t just the result of geopolitical calculation. It was also shaped, in part, by religiously motivated advocacy, especially from Christian organizations concerned about the treatment of Armenian Christians ethnically cleansed from Artsakh and the fate of Christian prisoners still held in Azerbaijani custody. Groups like Save Armenia worked to highlight these humanitarian concerns in Washington, and their efforts helped keep the issue on the radar of policymakers—particularly in the Republican orbit, where appeals to religious freedom and Christian persecution carry significant weight.

This raises broader questions about the evolving relationship between faith and foreign policy in the American context. Can religious advocacy effectively influence diplomacy in a way that’s consistent with strategic interests? Are faith-based groups entering a new phase of international engagement—one that’s less utopian and more aligned with traditional realist priorities, such as regional balance and access to trade routes?

In the latest episode of Legal Spirits, I speak with Dan Harre, Deputy Director of Save Armenia, about the draft deal and what it represents. We discuss how Christian groups became involved, why Armenia accepted such difficult terms, and why Azerbaijan may have chosen to delay finalizing the agreement. We also explore the historical echoes of this moment—including America’s fateful decision not to accept a League of Nations mandate for Armenia a century ago, a choice that shaped the region’s trajectory in profound ways.

You can listen to the episode here.

Whatever your view of this draft agreement, it’s a powerful case study in how legal, religious, and geopolitical considerations can overlap on the global stage.

The post Religion and Foreign-Policy Realism appeared first on Reason.com.