Yesterday, the provocation that occurred in Washington, the capital of the United States of America (USA), was the next episode of a coordinated information-provocation operation.
A group of individuals gathered in front of the hotel where Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev was staying attempted to attract attention with shouts and aggressive behavior.
They may be Azerbaijanis by name, but by their behavior, they are elements alienated from national interests. Behind this incident, concepts such as anti-national coalition-building are clearly observed.
To get to the bottom of the matter, one must first ask a question: which Armenian in the world has desired the liberation of Karabakh? Realities such as separatist campaigns conducted for years, attempts to legitimize the occupation, and anti-Azerbaijani rhetoric on international platforms prove the opposite. Not a single person from Armenian political circles has advocated for the liberation of Karabakh within the framework of Azerbaijan's sovereignty.
Azerbaijan, relying on international law, liberated its territories from occupation. This fact is no longer a subject of dispute; it is a regional geopolitical reality.
So why doesn't the Armenian lobby gather in front of the hotel where Pashinyan is staying? Why isn't the same aggression demonstrated against the Armenian leadership? The answer is clear. Because the target is not the Armenian government, but Azerbaijani statehood. The goal here is to discredit the “post-conflict reality” and create artificial tension in the information environment.
It is no coincidence that the first reaction and support for that aggressive action in Washington came from ANCA, the Armenian diaspora organization operating in the USA. For years, ANCA has served as the ideological and financial backbone of anti-Azerbaijani campaigns. The activities of this organization are a classic example of the “ethnic lobbying” model. Its main goal is to isolate Azerbaijan on the international stage, cast a shadow over regional projects, and turn the Armenian narrative into the dominant information line.
Immediately after ANCA, Frank Pallone spoke out. This name is well-known to the Azerbaijani public.
Pallone is one of the authors of the 907th amendment. He has always demonstrated a position denying the Khojaly genocide. He once made illegal visits to Azerbaijani territories under occupation. His activities are systematically built on an anti-Azerbaijani line.
Pallone's close ties with the Armenian lobby, political financing mechanisms, and influence networks in decision-making processes are already a subject of discussion in international expert circles. The Menendez case showed that the boundary between lobbying and corruption is often formal. If investigated, similar mechanisms might be found to be operating through other figures as well.
The action in Washington was precisely the synchronized activity of this network. Anti-national elements stood on the same front as chauvinistic Armenian circles. Their rhetoric, slogans, and behavioral style resembled an information campaign managed from the same center. This is a “transnational pressure technology” disguised as individual discontent.
Organizing such an action on the day a major international event was held was also risky from a security perspective. An attempt was made to grossly violate US security regulations. An attempt to forcibly breach the security perimeter around the hotel was recorded. Aggressive expressions and provocative behaviors were displayed. These attempts were prevented by the US police and the President's security service. This fact itself indicates that the incident was an attempt at planned escalation.
Here, the concept of “symbolic target selection” comes to the forefront. The President is an attribute of the state. Aggression directed against the head of state abroad is, in fact, open hostility against the state.
The activation of anti-national elements after Azerbaijan liberated its territories also draws attention. Because circles unable to reconcile with military-political defeat have shifted to the plane of information warfare. This stage can be called “post-defeat revanchism”. They act in a coordinated manner both domestically and abroad.
Domestically, the Mehdiyev-Karimli group did not express joy and pride over the liberation of Karabakh. The liberation of Karabakh and Eastern Zangezur from occupation was a moment of national unity. However, these political figures demonstrated silence. The reason is simple: their political rhetoric has been shaped by a situational configuration that runs counter to national interests.
The elements in Washington are also foreign fragments of the same line. They are the executors of information manipulation. Although their names are Azerbaijani, their activities align with the ANCA narrative. This, in turn, signifies “identity deformation”. That is, a deep contradiction has emerged between ethnic identity and political behavior.
In such cases, legal mechanisms must be activated. If these individuals hold Azerbaijani citizenship, the matter must be investigated. Citizenship entails not only rights but also responsibilities. The status of individuals who openly demonstrate hostility against the state must be evaluated on a legal plane. Specifically, if there are Azerbaijanis among them, their citizenship must absolutely be revoked. Because these elements are against all citizens.
Society must also be vigilant from an informational perspective. The people must recognize their enemy. This is a matter of national security. In the era of information warfare, “reputation attack” is one of the most dangerous weapons. Campaigns directed against the state are often effective with the participation of internal elements.
Historical memory must be formed. A list of individuals engaged in anti-national activities must be identified within a legal framework and presented to the public. Future generations must know who stood where in which period.
Azerbaijan has now entered a new geopolitical stage. The regional balance of power has changed. The Karabakh issue has been closed. Now, the main task is to strengthen post-conflict stability. At this stage, disinformation attempts by anti-national networks may further increase. Therefore, the state and society must act in sync.
Consequently, the incident in Washington once again demonstrated that the struggle is not only waged on the front line. Today, the struggle continues in the information space, on diplomatic platforms, and at the level of public opinion. Anti-national elements and foreign lobby circles act in a coordinated manner. However, Azerbaijani society is now in a stage of political maturity.
The people see who stands where. The state has ensured its sovereignty. Now, it is time to deepen national solidarity, strengthen information security, and expose anti-national networks.
Azerbaijan has liberated its territories. This historical reality is unchangeable. No provocation, no lobby campaign can overshadow this truth. Every step directed against the state must receive its response on a legal and political level.
Because a provocation against the President is an attack on the state. An attack against the state is unequivocally an opposition to the will of the people. The people, however, have already expressed their will. This will is the will of national sovereignty, independent policy, and victorious Azerbaijan.
Therefore, the names of these elements must be officially and unofficially declared as enemies of the people. They must be included in books and textbooks.
Let us bring the reasons to attention.
Every attack against an attribute of the state is a political provocation directly aimed at the national will; every insult voiced against the Azerbaijani President abroad is, in fact, a stone thrown at Azerbaijan's sovereignty.
Those who cannot digest the victory of their own people will remain political marginals before history. Those acting on ANCA's orders are elements of a foreign influence agency. Anyone who does not reconcile with the liberation of Karabakh is, in fact, an occupier. Such actions are planned reputation sabotage hidden under the guise of freedom of speech. Those who exchange national interests for the interests of foreign circles are enemies of the people. Aggression directed against the President is an attempt to weaken state institutions and must receive a legal assessment. Anti-national networks must know that in information warfare, too, the victorious side is Azerbaijan itself. Those who campaign against their state in foreign capitals stand on the side of national betrayal. Azerbaijan has liberated its territories, and those who do not accept this reality are in the final stage of political collapse. Abusing national identity to oppose the state is the most dangerous form of hypocrisy. The financial and influence networks behind coordinated attacks against the state must be fully exposed. The Azerbaijani people now clearly see who stands on the national position and who is on the anti-national front.
What else can these position holders be called? It is clear that these anti-national elements are directed organizationally and financially by ANCA.
Elnur AMIROV
