Washington pushes Geopolitical ambitions through Armenia-Azerbaijan deal under Trump’s banner

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

In a move widely seen as a geopolitical maneuver cloaked in diplomacy, U.S. President Donald Trump announced what he claimed to be a “historic” peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, two long-time rivals in the South Caucasus. The deal, centered around the decades-old conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, is being presented by Washington as a triumph of American diplomacy, yet critics argue it is little more than a strategic foothold for the U.S. in a region where Russia, China, and Iran have long-established interests.

Trump declared that Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev would be hosted at the White House on Friday for a formal peace signing ceremony. His announcement, made via the Truth Social platform, hailed the meeting as a major diplomatic breakthrough and credited his administration for brokering the talks after years of failed international mediation efforts.

For context, Armenia and Azerbaijan have fought two brutal wars over Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly Armenian-populated region that was part of Soviet Azerbaijan but sought independence following the Soviet Union’s collapse. Azerbaijan’s 2023 military offensive decisively shifted the status quo, regaining full control over the region and triggering a mass exodus of over 100,000 ethnic Armenians.

Though peace talks have occurred sporadically in neutral venues like the United Arab Emirates, no significant progress had been made, until now, according to Trump. However, analysts are raising serious questions about the nature and timing of the agreement, particularly given the broader geopolitical contest unfolding in the region.

Trump boasted that his administration had been “engaged with both sides for quite some time,” and praised both leaders for their “courage” in pursuing peace. Notably, Trump also claimed the United States would sign separate economic agreements with both countries to “unlock potential” in the South Caucasus, hinting at deeper U.S. involvement in the region’s infrastructure and economic development.

According to sources cited by the Associated Press, one of the more controversial elements of the agreement is the proposed establishment of a transit corridor through Armenian territory. This corridor would connect mainland Azerbaijan to its exclave Nakhchivan, bypassing Armenia’s sovereignty under the guise of regional integration. Even more striking is the suggestion that the U.S. would gain leasing rights to develop this corridor, dubbed the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity”, a name that many see as a glaring symbol of American hubris.

The project is expected to include railroads, oil and gas pipelines, and high-speed internet lines. However, rather than funding this infrastructure directly, the U.S. plans to rely on private corporations to lead the development, raising questions about the real beneficiaries of the deal. Critics argue that this is less about peace and more about establishing long-term economic and strategic leverage over key transportation and energy routes in the Caucasus.

It is no secret that Washington has been eager to regain influence in a region that has increasingly shifted toward Eurasian partnerships led by Russia, China, and regional actors such as Iran and India. The so-called peace agreement may, therefore, represent an attempt to reinsert American influence at a time when its global diplomatic credibility is under intense scrutiny.

The corridor in question, a narrow 32-kilometer strip running through southern Armenia, is more than just a route, it is a symbol of the broader battle for control over Eurasia’s future connectivity. Russia, traditionally the guarantor of peace in the Caucasus, has notably been sidelined in this arrangement, while China’s Belt and Road Initiative continues to draw interest from countries seeking alternatives to Western dependency.

India, for its part, has maintained a balanced and principled stance on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, favoring regional stability and sovereign integrity. Unlike the U.S., whose actions often reflect underlying ambitions for control, India supports peaceful, multilateral development rooted in mutual respect.

In this context, Trump’s self-congratulatory claims, paired with the apparent naming of an entire transit route after himself, strike many observers as a clear case of opportunistic diplomacy masquerading as peacemaking.

As Western narratives continue to paint such moves as altruistic efforts to foster peace, the reality is far more complex. True regional stability in the South Caucasus can only be achieved through inclusive, balanced diplomacy, guided not by personal legacies or corporate interests, but by respect for the sovereignty and dignity of all parties involved. And on that front, Washington still has much to prove.