A Bold Vision for Peace in the South Caucasus
The hopes for lasting peace in the South Caucasus were reignited under the Trump Administration, which brokered a deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan - two countries whose relationship has long been defined by hostility, territorial disputes, and historical grievances. For decades, this region has been a geopolitical tinderbox, with recurring conflicts over Nagorno-Karabakh resulting in immense humanitarian and strategic losses for both states.
The proposed agreement introduced a novel concept: the Zangezur Corridor, a transit route aimed at fostering economic cooperation and regional connectivity, under the watchful eye of the United States as a guarantor. Branded as TRIPP - the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity - the deal sought to leverage a single corridor as a tool to unlock economic potential, create new regional alliances, and establish U.S. influence as a stabilizing factor, effectively countering the traditional presence of Russia and Iran in the region.
However, beneath the optimistic framing lies a series of complex realities and concessions that must not be overlooked. Historical patterns in Armenia-Azerbaijan relations suggest that formal agreements alone cannot guarantee sustainable peace. A deeper understanding of the countries’ unique identities, civilizational backgrounds, and political trajectories is essential to evaluating the long-term impact of this deal.
Armenia vs. Azerbaijan
While the term "South Caucasus" often groups Armenia and Azerbaijan together, the two countries differ sharply in history, identity, and statehood development. Both emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, yet their post-Soviet trajectories reveal fundamental asymmetries.
Armenia is a secular state with a majority Christian population, shaped by the lasting trauma of the Armenian Genocide. Centuries of survival amid surrounding Muslim-majority populations have fostered cautious statecraft, which continues to influence domestic and foreign policy.
Azerbaijan, by contrast, is rooted in Turkic statehood traditions and a secular constitution overlaying a Muslim-majority society. Its national identity is defined by assertive territorial reclamation and strategic alliances, particularly with Türkiye. This difference is exemplified by Nagorno-Karabakh: while de facto Armenian-populated for decades, it remained de jure Azerbaijani territory until Azerbaijan regained control through military operations, displacing over 100,000 ethnic Armenians.
This asymmetry underscores the challenges of achieving durable peace in the region, as the countries approach statehood, sovereignty, and territorial issues from fundamentally different perspectives.
The Zangezur Corridor
The Zangezur Corridor links Azerbaijan to its Nakhichevan exclave, bypassing Armenian territory and bordering Türkiye and Iran. Framed as a trade route, it carries strategic weight: it strengthens Azerbaijan’s access to Nakhichevan, deepens its ties with Türkiye, and increases Armenia’s dependence on its stronger neighbors.
Under Prime Minister Pashinyan, Armenia has pursued a pragmatic “new Armenia” approach consolidating borders, reducing Russian influence, and relinquishing claims over Nagorno-Karabakh to avoid further escalation. Although symbolically cast as a regional “peace‑broker,” Armenia has seen few significant gains in return. Concurrently, despite criticism of Aliyev’s government for undemocratic practices, the country has nonetheless bolstered its international standing and strategic clout, leveraging close ties with Türkiye and the ideology of Turkic brotherhood.
Although legally framed under Armenian law for economic transit, unresolved hostilities, detained Armenian prisoners, and the exodus from Nagorno-Karabakh suggest that the corridor’s military and strategic potential cannot be ignored. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s rhetoric, calling Armenia “Western Azerbaijan” and advocating the return of ethnic Azerbaijanis, underscores that Armenia’s sovereignty along the corridor remains precarious.
Balancing Peace and Power
For Armenia, the TRIPP corridor presents both opportunity and danger. Politically, it may strengthen Pashinyan ahead of the 2026 elections by signaling his commitment to reconciliation and Western alignment. Strategically, however, it deepens Armenia’s exposure to Turkish-Azerbaijani pressure.
Material concessions, from relinquishing Nagorno-Karabakh to opening the corridor, have boosted Türkiye’s regional role, while Azerbaijan’s military superiority ensures that the balance of power remains tilted. The suspension of Amendment 907 of the U.S. Freedom Support Act, a measure originally passed in 1992 to bar direct aid to Azerbaijan for blockading Armenia, but waived by Washington since 2001, further enhances Baku’s freedom of action, facilitating closer defense and technology ties with Türkiye.
While the deal offers Pashinyan short-term political stability, it leaves Armenia in a fragile security position. Historical vulnerabilities, combined with Azerbaijan’s ambitions, suggest that peace will remain precarious unless backed by strong international oversight.
Kyourk Arslanian
Politics and Governance Student | American University of Armenia
