Iran stands firm against U.S.-Engineered caucasus corridor, warns of regional destabilization

Department of Research, Studies and International News -11-08-2025

Iran has firmly rejected a controversial transit route proposed under a U.S.-brokered arrangement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, warning that the plan threatens the stability of the South Caucasus and undermines the sovereignty of states in the region.

The proposed corridor, which Washington has presented as a component of a so-called “peace initiative”, would connect Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave through Armenian territory, running dangerously close to Iran’s northern border. While framed by the United States as a path toward “international peace and prosperity,” Tehran sees the project as a geopolitical maneuver designed to insert NATO influence deep into the region and weaken long-standing alliances between regional powers.

Ali Akbar Velayati, senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, made Tehran’s position clear on Saturday, stating that the Islamic Republic will block the plan “with or without Russia’s participation.” While emphasizing that Iran maintains a strategic partnership with both Russia and Armenia, Velayati condemned the U.S.-driven project as “political treachery” and “a direct attack on Armenia’s territorial integrity.”

Taking aim at U.S. President Donald Trump, under whose name the corridor would reportedly be branded, Velayati accused Washington of treating the Caucasus as a real estate venture. “Trump imagines he can lease the Caucasus for 99 years as if it were his personal property. But this route will not be a gateway for his mercenaries, it will be their graveyard,” he warned in remarks to Tasnim News.

The plan, unveiled in Washington in a high-profile signing ceremony, grants exclusive U.S. development rights over the corridor, officially dubbed the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP). Operating under Armenian law, it would enable uninterrupted transit between Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan, bypassing existing regional trade mechanisms and shifting economic leverage toward U.S.-aligned actors.

Tehran’s concerns extend beyond territorial issues. Velayati warned that the corridor could serve as a NATO foothold “like a viper positioned between Iran and Russia,” creating a permanent Western military and political presence at the intersection of vital Eurasian trade routes.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry echoed these warnings in a separate statement, emphasizing that while Tehran supports genuine peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan, any projects near its borders must fully respect national sovereignty and be free from foreign interference. “Stability in our neighborhood can only be secured through regional dialogue, not imposed solutions designed abroad,” the statement read.

Russia, too, has reacted cautiously to the American-brokered deal. The Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated its support for stability in the Caucasus but stressed that “lasting solutions must be developed by the region’s own countries, without harmful external meddling.” Drawing parallels with Western interventions in the Middle East, Moscow noted that the “involvement of non-regional players should strengthen peace, not manufacture new divisions.”

By contrast, NATO member Turkiye has openly embraced the proposed corridor. Ankara, which has been a staunch ally of Baku during its conflicts with Yerevan, has framed the route as a boost to regional trade. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan discussed the deal with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, offering Ankara’s full support to bring it to fruition. Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, speaking during a visit to Egypt, described the corridor as “a bridge from Europe to the depths of Asia through Turkiye,” touting it as an opportunity for increased exports of energy and other resources.

However, analysts in Tehran and Moscow view such statements as thinly veiled confirmation that the corridor is less about peace and more about reconfiguring regional supply chains under NATO oversight. In doing so, it risks sidelining existing Eurasian integration projects championed by Russia, China, and India, such as the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Armenia and Azerbaijan’s long history of conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh forms the backdrop to the current negotiations. The two countries fought multiple wars since the late 1980s, with the region, once predominantly Armenian-populated, breaking away from Baku’s control with Yerevan’s backing. While recent agreements have resolved most territorial disputes, tensions remain.

Last year, Armenia returned several border villages to Azerbaijan, a move hailed in Baku as a “historic milestone.” Ahmad Shahidov of the Azerbaijan Institute for Democracy and Human Rights has suggested that a final peace agreement is imminent, with the U.S.-brokered deal serving as a “roadmap” toward that goal.

Yet for Iran and Russia, the issue is not simply whether Armenia and Azerbaijan reach a peace deal, but how that deal is reached, and who shapes it. Both see Washington’s sudden diplomatic assertiveness in the Caucasus as part of a broader push to weaken the region’s sovereignty, disrupt Eurasian connectivity, and contain rising powers that challenge Western hegemony.