Content and reaction to PEACE Act proposing sanctions against Azerbaijan
Sanctions against Azerbaijan
The PEACE Act, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on 30 September by Republican lawmakers Darrell Issa and Gus Bilirakis, proposes sanctions in the event of new military aggression by Azerbaijan against Armenia.
The document states that the PEACE Act (H.R.5632) aims to strengthen the peace process in the South Caucasus and prevent further escalation.
It outlines two key directions of Washington’s policy in the region: supporting the sovereignty of both Armenia and Azerbaijan, and promoting a fair and lasting peace agreement between the two countries through direct negotiations.
In this context, the United States views sanctions as an alternative to the use of force, while also providing political support for Armenia’s efforts to reduce Russian influence and move closer to the West.
Content and objectives of the bill
The text of the Preventing Escalation and Advancing Caucasus Engagement Act (PEACE Act, H.R.5632) reflects the main priorities of U.S. policy toward the South Caucasus.
The bill underlines that supporting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as promoting direct negotiations to achieve a fair and lasting peace agreement, are its key objectives.
Washington, the document notes, seeks to prevent threats by using sanctions as an alternative to the use of force. The bill also frames the reduction of Russian influence in the region as a component of U.S. foreign policy.
According to the draft, if the U.S. president determines that Azerbaijan has carried out “hostile actions” against Armenia — meaning acts of aggression resulting in significant loss of life or violations of territorial sovereignty — they must immediately provide Congress with an explanation. In that case:
- The president would be required to impose sanctions on senior Azerbaijani government officials and their family members, as well as on military units, state institutions involved in acts of aggression, and foreign entities that provided them with substantial assistance. These sanctions include freezing their assets in the United States and banning the issuance of visas, effectively prohibiting their entry into the country.
- The president would also have to introduce restrictions on foreign financial institutions. Banks that knowingly conduct major transactions with Azerbaijani financial entities engaged in oil and gas trade would be barred from opening accounts or operating in the United States, or face strict limitations.
- The U.S. Department of the Treasury would be required to publish a list of Azerbaijani banks involved in oil trading, along with foreign banks that could face sanctions for cooperating with them. In effect, the bill envisions an indirect sanctions mechanism targeting Azerbaijan’s vital energy sector.
The bill also includes exemptions for humanitarian activities. Sanctions will not apply to foreign financial institutions conducting transactions related to trade in agricultural products, food, medicine, or medical supplies with Azerbaijan.
It also preserves exceptions aimed at ensuring compliance with international obligations — particularly in intelligence sharing and the issuance of visas for visits to UN headquarters.
As an additional safeguard for the peace process, the bill authorises the U.S. president to impose further sanctions on any individual found to be knowingly obstructing the conclusion of a peace agreement in line with the principles of the Joint Declaration.
This provision primarily targets those attempting to derail the peace process.
Accountability and reporting mechanisms are another key element of the bill. The president is required to submit a report to Congress every 90 days, detailing whether Azerbaijan has engaged in hostile actions against Armenia’s sovereign territory.
Once sanctions are imposed, the administration must provide regular updates on their effectiveness. If Azerbaijan ceases hostile actions, procedures should be developed to lift sanctions, provided that commitments are respected and no attacks occur for one year.
The bill also stipulates that the sanctions will expire after seven years, underscoring their role as a temporary and preventive measure.
Position of the bill’s authors: statements by Issa and Bilirakis
Members of Congress who introduced the bill describe it as a historic initiative aimed at strengthening peace and stability in the South Caucasus. Darrell Issa, vice-chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said U.S. leadership is a key factor in achieving a durable and just peace in the region.
He added that, despite skepticism over the possibility of an agreement ending aggression against Armenia, President Trump’s peace agenda has proven effective as a strategic and realistic approach, rejecting the outdated international status quo.
“The PEACE Act strengthens the Trump administration’s diplomatic initiatives to protect sovereignty and stability, and ensures that any attempts to undermine the peace agreement will not go unanswered,” Issa emphasized.
Another sponsor of the bill, Florida Congressman Gus Bilirakis, expressed a similar view. He said the U.S. supports its partners in Armenia, promotes accountability for acts of aggression, and encourages negotiated solutions based on respect for sovereignty and regional security.
Bilirakis described the bill as “a fundamental step to prevent Azerbaijani aggression and support a just and sustainable peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan.”
He said it allows the U.S. to defend its strategic interests in the South Caucasus by ensuring a fair peace and preventing impunity for acts of aggression.
A press release from Issa’s office outlined the bill’s key provisions:
i) mandatory sanctions against Azerbaijani officials, military units, and their allies in case of new aggression;
ii) restrictions on foreign financial institutions financing Azerbaijani oil trade;
iii) exemptions for humanitarian channels, including trade in food and medicine;
iv) additional powers for the president to sanction individuals attempting to derail the peace process;
v) regular reporting to Congress as part of oversight.
Darrell Issa represents California, while Gus Bilirakis, of Greek heritage, represents Florida. Analysts note that California’s large Armenian community and both congressmen’s long-standing engagement in Armenian lobbying helped drive this initiative.
Bilirakis, co-chair of the Congressional Armenian Caucus, opposed selling F-16 fighter jets to Turkey and consistently took a hard line on Turkey and Azerbaijan. Critics argue the bill serves as a political tool for the Armenian diaspora.
Nevertheless, Issa and Bilirakis present the legislation as a necessary step to safeguard the peace process achieved with U.S. mediation.
U.S. focus on democracy and human rights in peace initiative
U.S. officials and lawmakers view the peace initiative in the South Caucasus not merely as a military-political process, but as a project closely tied to promoting democracy and human rights. Washington believes that a sustainable peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan must ensure stability and create conditions for the region’s democratic development.
During hearings at the U.S. Helsinki Commission, it was stressed that “America plays a unique role in supporting Armenia’s future, which should be built on the principles of peace, democracy, and stability, free from destructive influences.”
In other words, U.S. representatives emphasize that Armenia’s integration with the West, democratic reforms, and limiting the influence of authoritarian powers, including Russia, are integral to the peace process.
Democratic reforms in recent years and the Armenian people’s aspiration for freedom have been welcomed in Washington, which sees them as a key socio-political foundation for lasting regional peace.
At the same time, the state of democracy and human rights in Azerbaijan remains a focal point for the U.S. administration. U.S. State Department reports on the South Caucasus note that human rights conditions in Azerbaijan continue to be problematic, and Washington regularly urges Baku to uphold fundamental freedoms.
Particular attention is paid to freedom of expression and assembly, reducing pressure on the opposition, combating corruption, and strengthening the rule of law — all seen as necessary for sustainable peace. Official statements emphasize: “Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Azerbaijan is key to unlocking the country’s potential.”
Such statements indicate that Washington does not view peace as complete merely with signed agreements or defined borders: the U.S. insists on domestic reforms to ensure its durability.
Humanitarian consequences of the conflict and accountability for human rights violations are recurring topics in Congress. Armenian-leaning groups advocate including stricter provisions regarding Azerbaijan in U.S. legislation.
Armenian organizations in the U.S. note that, despite the positive nature of the PEACE Act, it should also address the release of prisoners of war and civilian hostages, recognition of the rights of Armenians forced to leave Nagorno-Karabakh, and accountability for the alleged “ethnic cleansing” of 2023. The Armenian Council of America has appealed to Congress to strengthen the bill in these areas, stressing that this is essential for achieving a just and lasting peace.
U.S. officials underline that democratic development must go hand in hand with advancing the peace process. A State Department representative during the Trump administration noted that Trump’s approach demonstrated a readiness for decisive action to achieve peace and reflected a commitment to global stability and democratic values.
In other words, by promoting peace in the South Caucasus, Washington aims to transform the region into a more democratic and free space.
Thus, the U.S. peace initiative is seen not only as a geopolitical settlement but also as a matter of values. Washington views peace, democracy, and human rights as three central pillars of its strategy in the South Caucasus.
This effectively means that by deepening political, economic, and defense cooperation with Armenia, the U.S. simultaneously supports its democratic transformation.
In relations with Azerbaijan, Washington pursues energy and defense cooperation while engaging in dialogue on human rights, emphasizing that successful implementation of a peace agreement will require Azerbaijan to moderate its domestic policies.
During Senate hearings and in subcommittees on European affairs, lawmakers repeatedly stressed that without strengthened democratic institutions, the rule of law, and protection of human rights, the peace achieved could remain fragile.
In this context, legislative initiatives like the PEACE Act serve as leverage: they not only signal that attempts to undermine peace will have consequences, but also encourage parties — particularly Azerbaijan — to comply with international and human rights standards. международные нормы и права человека.
Reaction from Azerbaijan and official rhetoric
The initiative introduced in the US Congress has sparked discontent and criticism in Azerbaijan. Although Baku’s authorities have not yet issued an official statement on the PEACE Act, government-aligned media and public figures have described it as “biased, one-sided, and unfair.”
Azerbaijan considers the bill unbalanced and believes it could further escalate regional tensions. Officials are particularly dissatisfied that documents presented in Congress repeatedly portray Azerbaijan as a “potential aggressor,” while Armenia faces no corresponding obligations.
Azerbaijani authorities describe this approach as a double standard, arguing that it undermines peace and increases the risk of confrontation in the region. Media outlets have specifically criticised the bill’s phrasing on “preventing a new military escalation between Azerbaijan and Armenia,” calling it “false and slanderous.”
The provision allowing sanctions against “persons obstructing the peace process” is viewed as a tool to pressure Azerbaijan, as the bill implies it may be the party disrupting peace.
Baku could respond by lodging diplomatic protests and informing the US administration that such initiatives damage bilateral relations. Some lawmakers and politicians have already said the bill, “drafted under the influence of Armenian lobbying groups,” undermines the US’s role as a neutral mediator and harms trust.
Official statements emphasise that Azerbaijan restored its territorial integrity within internationally recognised borders through the 2020 and 2023 military operations. Baku maintains that Armenia, not Azerbaijan, is obstructing the post-conflict peace agenda, while Azerbaijan seeks a comprehensive peace agreement.
Azerbaijani rhetoric stresses that “as the victorious side, Azerbaijan is most interested in peace and does not need a new escalation.” This signals that Baku has no intention of disrupting the peace process, and delays in signing an agreement are attributed to Armenia’s indecision.
Presidential administration officials point out that Armenia remains unready to sign a peace deal and is influenced by external actors, including Russia. In this context, the PEACE Act, which targets only Azerbaijan, heightens domestic antagonism and raises questions about Washington’s impartiality.
Baku’s official position is that if the US is truly committed to peace, it should avoid unilateral initiatives and take balanced steps encouraging both sides to engage in dialogue. Azerbaijan expects Washington to monitor obligations on both sides equally. The current PEACE Act, however, contains no direct requirements or sanctions for Yerevan, which Baku perceives as unfair.
If the bill is passed, Azerbaijan may consider revising its relations with the US. Following its multi-vector foreign policy, Baku could interpret the legislation as undermining US credibility as a mediator and seek to rebalance ties toward Russia, China, and other partners.
Azerbaijani analysts warn that the PEACE Act could backfire: rather than fostering peace, it might push Baku away from the West and strengthen its cooperation with Moscow and Tehran.
Baku expresses hope that the US administration will prevent the initiative from advancing and continue to support the peace process through diplomacy rather than sanctions.
PEACE Act и санкциSanctions against Azerbaijan
