Who is Opposed to a Powerful Armenia?

Below is an excerpt from the fundamental work “The Clash of Civilizations” of American political scientist Samuel Huntington published in 1996.

“Representatives of the Armenian Diaspora also had a noticeable political influence on the governments of the countries that had become their second homelands. The largest Armenian communities in the United States are located in its key states – in California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

As a result, the Congress imposed a ban on any aid to Azerbaijan [in accordance with the Section 907 of the US Freedom Support Act], and Armenia became the third country in the world in terms of US aid per capita.

This support from abroad played an important role in the survival of Armenia, hence the whole validity of its nickname “Israel of the Caucasus.”

At the time of Huntington’s book’s publication, Armenia still had some independence and could afford a multi-vector foreign policy. The United States in the region relied on Armenia. Everything was leading to Armenia becoming the “Israel of the Caucasus.”

But after the Armenian parliament shooting in 1999, the control over the country was seized by a narrow circle of people headed by Robert Kocharyan and others alike. Everything changed drastically. In 2001, Section 907 was waivered by the President of the US.

Who is opposed to the development of Armenia and the formation of a military, political, and economic alliance with the US? Who benefited from the parliament shooting of 1999?

This question is rhetorical since the answer is right on the surface.