By Suren Sargsyan

On November 17, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs Alison Hooker visited Yerevan and Baku to promote the U.S. president’s vision of regional peace and security. During the visit, she discussed the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) project with the leadership of both countries. On November 18, Jonathan Asconas, Senior Advisor at the U.S. Department of State, visited Georgia to discuss the country’s possible participation in TRIPP. Beyond the economic implications of the route, these steps indicate an evolving regional U.S. approach toward the South Caucasus.

Credit: Diego Delso

BACKGROUND: The announcement regarding the construction of TRIPP and an increased U.S. activity in the South Caucasus has received significant political and analytical attention. However, five months after the announcement, it remains unclear what the timeline for implementation will be and which company will handle its operations. 

The announcement of the TRIPP project and the increase in U.S. activity in the South Caucasus have attracted significant political and analytical attention. However, five months after the announcement, it remains unclear what the implementation timeline will be and which company will be responsible for operating the project.

The central question is whether the U.S. is seeking a strategic foothold in the South Caucasus, a goal it has historically avoided, or whether its involvement remains primarily economic and business-oriented. Washington’s previous approaches towards the South Caucasus have fallen short of both a coherent strategy or ambitions to establish a lasting strategic presence in the region. In light of developments over recent months, it is therefore important to assess how U.S. policy toward the South Caucasus is evolving under the revitalized approach of the Trump administration.

TRIPP is primarily a business project, but it also has the potential to develop into a strategic asset by giving Washington a new presence in a region traditionally viewed as Russia’s sphere of influence. While it would first create a commercial foothold, the route could acquire broader strategic importance by connecting Asia and Europe while bypassing both Russia and Iran. The inclusion of pipelines, oil and gas corridors, and railway links would also allow Central Asian energy resources to reach Europe through the Caspian Sea, fully circumventing Russian territory.

On December 17, 2025, the Armenia–U.S. Bilateral Working Group, established to support the outcomes of the August 8, 2025, Peace Summit, held its inaugural meeting. 

IMPLICATIONS: To establish lasting influence in the South Caucasus, a global power must exert leverage over at least two of the region’s three states. At present, no external actor meets this condition, unlike Russia, which for years maintained decisive influence by using the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to exert control over both Armenia and Azerbaijan. This conflict-based dependence shaped their political priorities, foreign policy orientations, and economic choices, while also preventing the development of effective regional cooperation mechanisms.

Russia deliberately relied on the continuation of conflict as a tool of influence, a well-established method of maintaining strategic presence. When conflicts end, however, influence weakens and a vacuum emerges, which is often filled by another power. By contrast, the U.S. is seeking influence through the promotion of peace, economic development, and mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, presenting itself as an arbiter seeking to maintain long-term engagement in the region. The possible inclusion of Georgia in discussions on TRIPP further increases the strategic importance of this approach.

While Moscow relied on managed instability, Washington is investing in regional consolidation based on shared economic interests. This approach inevitably conflicts with the interests of states that oppose both TRIPP and the expansion of U.S. influence. Given the deep historical, institutional, and economic links between the South Caucasus and Central Asia, through organizations such as the EAEU, CSTO, CIS, and the Organization of Turkic States, any change in the balance of influence in one region will directly affect the other.

Within this broader framework, the Trump administration has sought to extend the Abraham Accords beyond their original Middle Eastern context. By including economically important, Muslim-majority but secular states such as Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, both of which already have strong relations with Israel, the aim is not normalization, but the institutionalization of cooperation. This approach represents another U.S.-led multilateral mechanism designed to promote regional prosperity while expanding long-term strategic influence.

Judging from recent practical developments, it becomes clear that current U.S. policy toward the South Caucasus is growing more complex and nuanced. On November 30, 2024, the U.S. suspended its strategic partnership agreement with Georgia, a document it had been the first among South Caucasus states to sign in 2009. Shortly thereafter, in the final days of the Biden administration, the U.S. signed a strategic partnership agreement with Armenia on January 14, 2025. On November 8, 2025, the Trump administration signed a memorandum with Azerbaijan to establish a working group tasked with preparing a strategic partnership agreement. At the same time, President Trump waived Section 907, enabling expanded cooperation between Azerbaijan and the U.S. across a range of areas. 

These steps suggest that the Trump administration is prioritizing a regional approach toward the South Caucasus. In addition, the U.S. provided Armenia with US$ 145 million in assistance as part of the first tranche of funding for the TRIPP project and related agreements reached on August 8. This support is intended to finance investments in trade, infrastructure, critical mineral supply chains, and border security.

As for Georgia, despite tensions in bilateral relations, the country continues to play an important role in U.S. regional policy. Georgia has sought to align itself with Washington’s agenda of promoting peace in the South Caucasus, while also discussing possible participation in the TRIPP project and its implementation. This approach appears to correspond with U.S. expectations, as Washington moves toward deeper engagement with Georgia within this framework.

Current U.S. policy extends beyond the bilateral level and has regional ambitions, seeking to strengthen cooperation with South Caucasus states individually while emphasizing shared regional priorities. 

CONCLUSIONS: Despite the apparent principled agreement of all parties on the route, its timeline for implementation and the duration of the process remain unclear. If realized, the route would give the U.S. a unique opportunity to establish a presence in the South Caucasus, and this commercial presence could evolve into a strategically significant one, especially if the route’s scale and capacity become significant enough for Azerbaijan, Armenia, and the U.S. companies responsible for its operation and security. Whether the U.S. can counter the long-standing influence of Russia and Iran in the region, both of which may view the project as undermining their interests, will depend on the consistency of the Trump administration’s policy, its sustained commitment, and the broader competition among global actors in the South Caucasus.

According to Armenian authorities, Yerevan and Washington plan to establish a consortium that would act as the main company responsible for constructing and operating the railway. The consortium could also build, manage, and operate pipelines, power transmission lines, and other related infrastructure. In addition to road transport, rail capacity is crucial to sustain the transport of Chinese goods along this route in order to ensure its economic viability and maximize cargo volumes.

From this perspective, overall U.S.–China relations are also critical. As a result, the U.S. faces the compound challenge of promoting peace and stability in the region and limit potential spoilers, while simultaneously improving relations with China and resolving outstanding tariff issues, tasks that pose a particularly difficult test for the Trump administration.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Suren Sargsyan is a PhD candidate Political Science. He holds LLM degrees from Yerevan State University, the American University of Armenia, and Tufts University Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He is the director of the Armenian Center for American Studies.

By Nargiza Umarova

The Islamic Republic of Iran is intensifying its transport diplomacy with Central Asian states, driven by a shared interest in enhancing their competitive positions in transit transport amid the growing importance of east–west and north–south land corridors. Despite international economic sanctions and sustained pressure from the U.S., Iran continues to pursue mutually beneficial partnerships with neighboring countries to consolidate its role as a regional transit hub. This strategy is particularly evident in its promotion to Europe of the Southern Corridor, which involves virtually all Central Asian states, as well as China

BACKGROUND: In recent years, Central Asia has emerged as a focal point in the transformation of Eurasia’s transport architecture, reinforcing momentum for the development of sustainable trade routes through Iran to West and South Asia and to Europe. This trend aligns with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which Iran formally joined in 2021 following the signing of a 25-year comprehensive cooperation agreement with Beijing.

China has shown growing interest in operating the southern branch of the New Silk Road, as heightened maritime tensions and the war in Ukraine, which have constrained the Northern Corridor through Russia and Belarus, have compelled Beijing to redirect part of its Europe-bound cargo to continental routes. Central Asia and the South Caucasus provide an alternative through multimodal transport across the Caspian and Black Seas. China is already engaged in trans-Caspian logistics: in 2024, cargo volumes transported from China via the Middle Corridor exceeded 27,000 containers, representing a 25-fold increase compared to 2023. At the same time, Beijing is pursuing the development of the Southern Transit Route for both economic and geopolitical reasons.

The EU is China’s second-largest trading partner. Mutual trade reached US$ 762 billion in 2024 and rose to almost US$ 850 billion in 2025. Given that Chinese exports to the EU are dominated by high-technology goods, Beijing naturally prioritizes containerized transport for overland logistics. From a technical perspective, the transit corridor through Iran is particularly well suited to this purpose. This corridor is expected to become monomodal following the completion of the China–Kyrgyzstan–Uzbekistan railway and the railway line linking Marand in Iran with Cheshmeh Soraya and onward to the Turkish border in the Aralık region. The latter project will eliminate the need for ferry transport across Lake Van in Turkey, which currently constrains the smooth functioning of the Southern Corridor.

In 2025, Iran’s Ministry of Roads and Urban Development announced plans to construct nine transit railway corridors with a total length of 17,000 kilometers, at an estimated cost exceeding US$ 10 billion. Upon completion, Iran’s rail network is expected to handle up to 60 million tons of cargo annually. Several of these projects, including the 200-kilometer Marand–Cheshmeh Soraya railway, are aligned with the Southern Railway Corridor and are intended to position it as the shortest trade route between East and West.

IMPLICATIONS: The granting of exclusive rights to the U.S. to develop the Zangezur Corridor, proposed to be named the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP), is increasingly prompting China to provide tangible support for the Southern Corridor through Iran. A joint venture, the TRIPP Development Company, has been announced, with the U.S. holding a 74 percent stake. Beijing may interpret this initiative as an effort by Washington to gain leverage over freight transport along the Middle Corridor. To mitigate this risk, China requires reliable transport routes that bypass the Caspian Sea.

China is currently constructing the Sarakhs railway terminal on the Turkmenistan–Iran border, a project expected to accelerate container transport along the China–Central Asia–Iran–Turkey–EU and Gulf routes. In August 2025, Iranian authorities reported that more than half of the project had been completed.

Beijing and Tehran have also agreed to electrify a 1,000-kilometre railway section from Sarakhs to Razi on the Turkish border. The project includes the construction of additional track segments, which are expected to triple freight capacity to 15 million tons annually.

Meanwhile, Iran and Turkmenistan plan to lay additional 1,435 mm- and 1,520 mm-gauge tracks between the Sarakhs stations to accelerate freight movement and expand border-crossing capacity. The objective is to raise cross-border freight volumes to 20 million tons annually, including up to 6 million tons transported by rail. Both countries have reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening the Southern Railway Corridor westward and the Central Asia–Persian Gulf multimodal transport corridor, the latter launched in 2016 under the Ashgabat Agreement by Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, and Oman.

Uzbekistan’s policy of diversifying its trade flows and establishing efficient transport links with global markets has provided significant momentum to the development of the southern branch of the East–West transit corridor. As early as 2022, Tashkent, in cooperation with Ankara, launched freight rail services along the Uzbekistan–Turkmenistan–Iran–Turkey route. This corridor, with potential extension to the EU, was presented as the fastest and most efficient option for bilateral export and import deliveries.

Tashkent views the Southern Corridor, whose current capacity is limited to 10 million tons per year for technical and political reasons, as a potential driver of its own economic growth through a significant expansion of transport service exports. This prospect is closely linked to the completion of the China–Kyrgyzstan–Uzbekistan railway, scheduled for 2030. Once integrated with Iran’s rail network within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s unified transport space, the East Asia–Europe route will be shortened by approximately 900 kilometers, reducing delivery times by seven to eight days. As a result, the Southern Railway Corridor is expected to become the shortest monomodal link between these two economically advanced regions. In parallel, the construction of an international highway connecting China with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan is projected to generate additional cargo flows in the Iran–Turkey direction and to support the development of the China–Tajikistan–Uzbekistan–Turkmenistan–Iran–Turkey/EU multimodal transit corridor. Pilot implementation of this project is expected in 2026.

At the same time, the China–Kazakhstan–Uzbekistan–Turkmenistan–Iran–Turkey/EU and China–Kazakhstan–Turkmenistan–Iran–Turkey/EU railway corridors are under development. Their advancement is being coordinated through regular consultations among the railway authorities of the six participating countries, with two meetings held in 2025. The first took place in Tehran in May, after which China dispatched its first freight train from Xi’an to Aprin, Iran’s largest dry port, via Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. This route reduces delivery times to approximately 15 days, around half the duration of maritime transport. By the end of 2025, 40 cargo trains had been dispatched from China to Iran, compared to only seven over the previous seven years. The significance of these developments extends beyond China–Iran trade, contributing to broader improvements in transport connectivity between East Asia and Europe.

On August 2, 2025, the heads of the railway companies of Iran, Kazakhstan, China, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Turkey held a further round of negotiations in Beijing on the operation of the southern branch of the East–West Corridor. Building on the May meeting, the parties elaborated a preliminary agreement establishing uniform transport tariffs along the China–Kazakhstan–Uzbekistan–Turkmenistan–Iran–Turkey/EU railway route, as well as measures to increase freight volumes, including standardized delivery times and simplified procedures.

Central Asian states seek transit through Iran not only to access Turkey and Europe by land, but also to reach the Indian Ocean via Iran’s major southern ports of Chabahar and Bandar Abbas. In 2023, Uzbekistan announced plans to build a terminal and warehouse facilities at Shahid Beheshti Port in Chabahar. In 2025, Kazakhstan declared its intention to construct a transport and logistics terminal at Shahid Rajaee Seaport, part of the Bandar Abbas Port. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan likewise attach high priority to transport cooperation with Tehran and are developing access to Iranian maritime infrastructure via Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. These developments reflect the accelerated expansion of multimodal transport corridors along the north–south axis and the growing importance of Central Asia in global logistics.

CONCLUSIONS: Amid ongoing transformations in Central Asia’s logistics landscape, cooperation between the region’s states and Iran, whose geography provides ocean access and a diversified transport infrastructure ranging from highways to major seaports, is becoming increasingly critical. Despite international sanctions, the five Central Asian republics have adopted a flexible and pragmatic approach toward Iran, using transport diplomacy to strengthen their transit capacities. The key challenge ahead is the collective resolution of bottlenecks along the Southern Transit Corridor. This will require harmonization of transport policies and legislation, technical and technological standards, the adoption of unified transport documentation, and the establishment of a coordinating body to align the activities of the railway administrations along the route. 

It is equally critical to develop a consolidated approach to the conflict-generating situation in Iran, which poses a serious threat to the prospects of regional transport projects. In this context, Central Asian states should clearly define and defend their interests vis-à-vis Western partners, including the U.S., by seeking favorable conditions for promoting trans-Iranian routes.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Nargiza Umarova is Head of the Center for Strategic Connectivity at the Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS), University of World Economy and Diplomacy (UWED) and an analyst at the Non-governmental Research Institution ‘Knowledge Caravan’, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Her research activities focus on developments in Central Asia, trends in regional integration and the influence of great powers on this process. She also explores Uzbekistan’s current policy on the creation and development of international transport corridors. She can be contacted at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

By Farkhod Tolipov

In mid-December 2025, several Russian state-controlled media outlets spread a rumor that Russia could apply for membership in the Central Asian Community. This statement followed Azerbaijan’s entry into the regional grouping in November at the 7th Consultative Meeting of the Heads of State of Central Asia, held in Tashkent. The rumor reminded of Russia’s accession to the Central Asian Cooperation Organization in 2004, which led to the merger of that body with the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Community. Once again, Russia seeks to join the Central Asian Community, potentially worsening geopolitical tensions in the region.

BACKGROUND: Twenty years ago, in 2004, Russia applied for membership in the Central Asian Cooperation Organization (CACO). At that time, the presidents of two key states, Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev of and Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov, were unable to refuse Moscow. This external membership in CACO eventually led to the organization’s collapse. One year after Russia’s admission, CACO was merged with the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Community (EvrAzES) on the grounds that the two organizations duplicated each other. Uzbekistan withdrew from EvrAzES in 2008. The structure itself existed until 2014, and in 2015, it was replaced by the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Only two Central Asian states, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, are now members of the EAEU. 

In 2019, the Russian side suddenly announced that Uzbekistan could become a member of the EAEU. Uzbekistan never confirmed either its desire or the possibility of such membership but decided in December 2020 to become an observer in the EAEU. Since then, Moscow has constantly and officially reminded Uzbekistan that the EAEU is waiting. Recently, the President of Belarus Aleksandr Lukashenko even stated that “we are looking forward to Uzbekistan’s membership in the EAEU.” Notably, such statements come only from Russia or Belarus; other EAEU states are not focused on this, and Uzbekistan does not show a strong interest in joining the organization.

Against this backdrop, two geopolitical issues cause concern in Moscow. First, without Uzbekistan in the EAEU, Central Asia cannot be brought under full Russian control. Second, the EAEU remains a very small entity, consisting of only five former Soviet republics. This limited composition does not support Russia’s image as a great power but, on the contrary, highlights its difficulty in asserting such a status.

It has become a tradition that the informal summits of the EAEU and the CIS are held in Saint Petersburg on the same days. On 22–23 December 2025, both events took place in the city. Reports on the CIS/EAEU summits were quite modest and contained no serious statements, except positive remarks about increased trade within the CIS/EAEU during the year. These largely symbolic events took place against the background of the war in Ukraine, which has dealt a serious blow to Moscow’s international reputation. In this context, Russia is using different means to preserve its influence in Central Asia while losing control over other parts of the former Soviet space.

IMPLICATIONS: Azerbaijan’s president Ilham Aliyev did not attend the EAEU summit, citing his country’s non-membership in the organization. He also did not travel to Saint Petersburg for the CIS summit, referring to his busy schedule. However, in November Azerbaijan became a full participant in the Consultative Meetings of the Heads of State of Central Asia (CMHS).

Although Baku’s accession to the CMHS is assessed differently across the region, this expansion of the “C5” format into a “C6” is likely viewed in Moscow as a new challenge to Russia’s position in the region of the “stans.” This may explain the appearance of rumors that Russia could apply for membership in the CMHS. At the same time, the increasingly pro-Russian policies of all Central Asian states, whether genuine or aimed at avoiding Moscow’s displeasure, raise concerns that history may repeat itself and that the Central Asian Community could again open its doors to Russia.

Uzbekistan’s President Shavkat Mirziyoyev delivered a speech at the meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council that resembled a statement from a full member. He described EAEU countries as “our strategic and natural partners.” According to the president, Uzbekistan actively participates in all key Eurasian formats. He also stated that “we believe it is necessary to strengthen coordination between the institutions of the CIS and the EAEU.”

Mirziyoyev highlighted several issues, including the elimination of trade barriers and the creation of an Uzbekistan–EAEU coordination group on tariff and non-tariff barriers; the development of industrial cooperation and the launch of joint projects in machinery, energy, agriculture, and the chemical sector; the digitalization of trade and customs administration; participation in EAEU technological platforms, from biomedicine and new materials to robotics; and the creation of a unified tourism space that would combine products of the Union’s member states.

Overall, the narrow, trade- and business-centered rhetoric surrounding the EAEU does not indicate the emergence of a shared regional identity among its member states, which is both a key condition for and an outcome of meaningful integration. In contrast, a broader vision of Central Asia, based on a natural sense of common identity among its peoples, is far stronger than a solely economic grouping of states. Indeed, the November summit of Central Asian leaders in Tashkent produced notable signs of deeper regional integration. In particular, it was announced that the CMHS format could be transformed into a Community of Central Asia (CCA).

Despite this major trend in Central Asia, the pro-Russian, or seemingly pro-Russian, policies of regional leaders may have a reverse effect and lead to a repetition of history, including a renewed Russian application for membership in the CCA for purely geopolitical reasons. In a recent and telling statement, Russia’s ambassador to Uzbekistan claimed that “Uzbekistan assured the Russian Federation that the era of the Great Game has passed into oblivion.” The remark suggests the opposite: the Great Game may be entering a new phase in which it is not Uzbekistan or other Central Asian states that shape geopolitical rivalry, but Russia itself, which continues to view the region through the lens of great-power competition. Throughout its independence, Uzbekistan has sought to avoid geopolitical entanglements. Therefore, if assurances about the end of geopolitical games are needed, they should come from great powers themselves, rather than from Central Asian states.

Moscow may believe that Russia’s membership in CAC would signal the end of the Great Game, whereas in reality it would represent yet another expression of Russia’s enduring geopolitical modus vivendi.

CONCLUSIONS: Central Asia is entering a new round of the geopolitical Great Game, and this game is being driven primarily by Russia. In the context of the war in Ukraine, this outcome is hardly surprising. Moscow’s foreign policy and its broader international behavior are clearly dominated by geopolitical considerations.

At present, one can observe the emergence of two opposing geopolitical configurations, the “Eurasian Five” of the Eurasian community versus the “Central Asian Six” of the Central Asian Community. The paradox of this dual trend, however, is that two Central Asian states, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, are members of both EAEU and CAC.

In 2004, Russia’s accession to CACO distorted, weakened, and ultimately destroyed the organization and the broader process of integration among the five Central Asian states. As a result, regional integration was halted for a decade and revived only in 2017. Integration in Central Asia is a distinct phenomenon: from the outset, it has been shaped in part to avoid geopolitical entanglements. By its nature, Central Asian integration cannot include any major power, regardless of which one it is, because such inclusion would inevitably introduce a dimension of geopolitical competition into the integration process.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Dr. Farkhod Tolipov holds a PhD in Political Science and is Director of the Education and Research Institution “Bilim Karvoni” (“Knowledge Caravan”) in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

By Robert M. Cutler

In late December 2025, Armenia’s Central Election Commission pointed to June 7, 2026, as the likely date for parliamentary elections, implicitly tightening the timetable for any referendum linked to the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace agreement. With the text initialed but unsigned, Yerevan and Baku face steps towards ratification, slowly continuing border demarcation work, and interim arrangements. Russia, Turkey, and Iran are signaling their interests, but Armenia’s domestic politics will be decisive for the treaty’s signature and entry into force, and for the implementation of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP).

Credit: Shutterstock

BACKGROUND: Early in 2025, Armenia and Azerbaijan moved the peace process beyond a notional document toward a text whose core provisions are settled. On March 13, 2025, the two foreign ministries publicly stated that they had concluded negotiations on the draft “Agreement on Peace and the Establishment of Interstate Relations.” At the same time, Azerbaijan framed its signature as contingent on changes to Armenia’s constitution. 

While the March 2025 step did not produce an immediate signature, it shifted the process from drafting to preconditions and sequencing. Whereas Baku treats language in the preamble to Armenia’s constitution as a territorial claim, Yerevan rejects that interpretation, pointing to the possibility of a constitutional referendum without setting a definite timeline. The draft also contains language that would bar deployment of third-country personnel along the Armenia–Azerbaijan border. That provision bears directly on any monitoring presence near the frontier and, more broadly, on how the parties intend to manage security before demarcation is complete.

On August 8, 2025, the process advanced again in Washington. The parties initialed the text, and on August 11, Armenia published the full draft by mutual agreement. This U.S.-brokered step still stopped short of formal signature. The published text is explicit on several foundational points: it affirms mutual recognition of sovereignty and territorial integrity on the basis that former Soviet administrative borders become international borders; it renounces territorial claims; and it bars the use or threat of force as well as the use of each party’s territory by a third party for force against the other.

The draft also specifies the intended machinery for implementation. Diplomatic relations are to be established within a specified number of days after completion of ratification, although the published draft leaves that number blank. Border commissions are tasked to negotiate a separate delimitation and demarcation agreement. In the interim, the parties commit not to deploy third-party forces along the border and to adopt mutually agreed confidence-building measures pending demarcation. Additional “modalities” to be negotiated later include the detailed handling of missing persons and the working rules for the bilateral commission that is meant to oversee implementation. 

IMPLICATIONS: Armenia’s domestic political timetable has become a binding constraint on the pace and sequencing of decisions. On December 24, 2025, Armenpress reported that the chairman of the Central Election Commission said that June 7, 2026, was widely regarded as the likely election day, although a presidential decree had not yet been issued. That prospective date matters because Azerbaijan’s constitutional precondition points toward a referendum route in Armenia, while the treaty text itself anticipates domestic procedures and ratification steps before it can take effect. As of January 2026, the agreement’s core commitments are public and the text has been initialed, but signature and operational implementation still depend on how Yerevan and Baku sequence domestic legal assurances, border-related work, and interim security arrangements.

The Armenia–Azerbaijan peace framework stipulates that the route remains Armenian sovereign territory, while granting the U.S. exclusive development rights for 99 years. Washington would presumably pay Yerevan for the lease, with the land sub-leased to an Armenian-U.S. joint venture that would serve as the operator, holding a long-term mandate to construct and manage rail, road, pipelines, and fiber-optic infrastructure along the approximately 25 miles of Armenian territory linking Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan. The U.S. might potentially deploy limited security personnel to ensure corridor security, but official texts remain vague on any on-the-ground presence. 

The peace text, as well as official Armenian statements, emphasize that the route is to be operated under Armenian law, with Yerevan retaining jurisdiction and administrative control. That emphasis, which is intended to foreclose putative concerns about extraterritorial claims by Azerbaijan, is necessary to placate and manage domestic and diaspora opinion. However, the framework agreement does not resolve key practical questions, including customs and border management details such as who stamps cargo, how fees are shared, and whether streamlined or special customs procedures will apply.

At this stage, the issue is less about drafting than durability. If the corridor arrangement proceeds under a 99-year U.S. development right, regional capitals will treat it as a strategic marker as well as a transport project. Moscow will judge it against its South Caucasus position; Tehran will weigh it against its red lines on transit and foreign presence; Ankara and Brussels will look for leverage on connectivity and standards. In Armenia, the sovereignty formula will be measured against day-to-day control at the route. Those pressures will shape prospects more than the text itself.

The attitudes of the three major regional players – Russia, Turkey, and Iran – are important conditioning factors, but none seems willing and able to block a peace deal definitively. For example, Moscow publicly welcomed the U.S.-brokered step but also warned that involvement by “non-regional players” should not create new divisions. Russia’s core attitude appears to be conditional acceptance of a peace text, paired with resistance to a long-duration U.S. operational footprint in a sensitive strip of Armenia. The warning language is less about the agreement’s existence than about who institutionalizes it and who physically manages it. A predictable Russian preference is that any corridor implementation be folded back into regionally branded formats. Indirect Russian-linked participation remains structurally available because a subsidiary of Russian Railways holds a concession to manage Armenia’s railway network.

Iran ostensibly welcomes the peace while warning against foreign “intervention” near its borders. Its attitude thus refuses to tolerate any outcome that looks like a change in the geopolitical configuration around Armenia’s southern border. Iranian commentary has linked the TRIPP specifically to concerns about a NATO-adjacent presence on the border. A senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader used escalatory deterrent rhetoric portraying the corridor concept as unacceptable and explicitly threatened to prevent “geopolitical changes.” Tehran’s interests are actually best served by a re-ignition of the conflict and the economic impoverishment of the Armenian population, both of which would decrease Yerevan’s autonomy and open for enhanced Iranian influence. Yet of course, it cannot say this out loud. Tehran’s lacks any actual capacity for vetoing the agreement but can exercise coercive signaling through military exercises, political warnings, and pressure through regional alignments.

Turkey strongly favors any route that de-isolates Nakhchivan, welcoming the corridor concept as a gain for strategic connectivity linking Europe to Asia via Turkey. However, despite its conditional welcome of a U.S.-anchored commercial structure, Ankara still wants the region’s political center of gravity to remain in the Ankara–Baku axis rather than shifting to Washington as the indispensable actor. A commercially functioning route will accelerate Turkey’s own normalization goals with Armenia, which are explicitly tied to an Armenia–Azerbaijan peace treaty outcome. In late December 2025, Armenia and Turkey implemented a limited but concrete confidence step on visa procedures for certain official passport holders, effective January 1, 2026. Turkey will want a formula that works for Armenia, because a route that triggers prolonged Armenian internal instability would not be in Turkish interests.

CONCLUSIONS: To summarize, Russia would like to keep the process “regionalizable” and resist a precedent of long-term U.S. operating control, while Iran will treat optics as substance, especially regarding anything that looks like foreign security infrastructure adjacent to Iran’s border. Turkey’s attitude is broadly enabling, because the route advances Ankara’s connectivity vision and strengthens its ties with Azerbaijan. The evolution of domestic Armenian politics, however, is what will really determine the outcome: whether Pashinyan’s forces receive a majority of seats in the June parliamentary election, and whether a subsequent referendum will approve the necessary change in Armenia’s constitution.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Robert M. Cutler is Director and Senior Fellow, Energy Security Program, NATO Association of Canada. He was for many years a senior researcher at the Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies, Carleton University.