On 8 August 8 2025, President Trump hosted at the White House the former foes and current frenemies, President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, and Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan. The trilateral meeting resulted in the announcement of a new “contract of the century,” titled the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). President Trump aims to accomplish a Herculean task: bringing peace to a region long marred by violent conflicts and human loss. The path proposed by Trump could have serious repercussions for the already complex and volatile situation in the war-torn region, and beyond. What follows is an article in two parts, one written by each author.
Arakelyan Viewpoint
Armenia and Azerbaijan have fought multiple wars over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which had been self-governed since 1994. The situation took a dramatic turn in 2020, when Azerbaijan, supported by Russia and Turkey, used military force to partially retake the enclave. Moscow brokered a ceasefire agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan in November 2020 and deployed peacekeeping forces to the region. Despite their presence, Azerbaijan has continued engaging in salami-slicing tactics, gradually occupying more territory that remained under Armenian control.
Article 6 of the treaty specifically required Azerbaijan to guarantee “safe movement of citizens, vehicles, and cargo in both directions along the Lachin corridor.” The Lachin corridor, the only road connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, was placed under the control of the Russian army. In December 2022, the Azerbaijani government closed the sole road connecting the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh to the outside world while Russian peacekeepers were stationed in the area. The humanitarian crisis was marked by the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which is prohibited by international law.
After a nine-month blockade, Azerbaijan launched a military offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023. To stop the slaughter of ethnic Armenian civilians by a 60,000-strong Azerbaijani army, the de facto authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh signed a Russian-brokered ceasefire agreement with Baku, agreeing to disarm and disband the Defense Army. They also announced the dissolution of the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh, effective January 1st, 2024. The West was accused of crying genocide all too quietly over the mass exodus of ethnic Armenians from their ancestral homeland, while Moscow bluntly refused to acknowledge the Azerbaijani aggression.
Moscow and Baku have refused to honor the ceasefire agreement except for Article 9, which requires Armenia to open a road connecting Azerbaijan to its enclave, Nakhichevan. Yerevan agreed to provide Baku with a transit road through its territory in exchange for the Lachin corridor, linking Armenia to Artsakh. The dissolution of the de facto state and the ethnic cleansing of its entire Armenian population have eliminated Yerevan’s obligation to honor the 2020 agreement. The proposed Zangezur corridor, which the Trump administration renamed the TRIPP, would establish “the unimpeded movement of citizens, vehicles, and cargo in both directions.” The question remains: why should Armenia be forced to comply with Article 9 of the Moscow-brokered agreement in the absence of reciprocity?
According to the 2020 treaty, control over transport routes through Armenia’s Syunik province, which geographically separates Azerbaijan from Nakhichevan, was to be overseen by the Border Guard Service of Russia’s Federal Security Service. The Armenian government grew concerned that Syunik might eventually be annexed by either Russia or Azerbaijan, given recent developments in Nagorno-Karabakh. In response, Yerevan has shown willingness to allow the United States to oversee an infrastructure project that would remain under Armenian control. The proposed TRIPP route through Syunik would function as a commercial link between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan, with Washington expected to ensure its safe operations via agreements with third-party operators.
Although the U.S. has no plans to deploy military personnel to oversee the TRIPP, Russia’s 102nd military base remains stationed in Gyumri, Armenia’s second-largest city. Pashinyan would be unwise to underestimate Moscow’s willingness to use military force to defend its national interests. The Kremlin recently reaffirmed that the 2020 Russian-brokered ceasefire agreement remains valid, and Armenia’s membership in the Eurasian Economic Union plays a key role in facilitating transit cargo through its territory.
Iran, which shares a 44-kilometer border with Armenia, guarded by Russian border troops under a 1992 agreement, was the only regional power to oppose the opening of the so-called Zangezur corridor. Tehran has labeled the TRIPP project a “great betrayal” and sees a U.S. presence on its border as a direct threat. Pashinyan has sent mixed signals: while the treaty implies a pro-Western shift, he has also claimed that both Iran and Russia could participate in the project. This multilayered appeasement may backfire sooner than he expects.
Critical questions remain outside the scope of the agreement initialed in Washington. Azerbaijan continues to detain numerous Armenian POWs and civilians. The Aliyev regime has ignored multiple rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that require Azerbaijan to allow the safe return of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh to their homeland and to release the POWs and hostages. Article XV of the preliminary treaty requires both parties to withdraw “any and all interstate claims.” This provision effectively legitimizes Azerbaijan’s well-documented war crimes against both the de facto state and the Republic of Armenia, as well as the ethnic cleansing of the entire Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Moreover, Azerbaijan has occupied at least 215 square kilometers of Armenia’s sovereign territory since 2020, which is another issue excluded from the trilateral meeting at the White House. Both the United Kingdom and the European Union have imposed sanctions on Azerbaijani individuals and various companies, some of which are state-controlled, accused of trading Russian oil. While the Trump administration claims to be working to stop the war in Ukraine, it simultaneously supports Azerbaijan, which helps finance the Russian war by facilitating a new trade road. Establishing a new commercial route in the war-torn region while eschewing critical issues, including the fate of POWs and hostages, and the displacement of the entire population from their homeland, creates a Potemkin village, not lasting peace.
Kassab response
TRIPP would not violate Armenia’s sovereignty but enhance it. First and foremost, it offers Armenia the opportunity to escape its isolation. The problem for Armenia is its geopolitical location. As a landlocked country surrounded by enemy states, Armenia has few choices. As stated, Russia abandoned it during its time of need. Turkey and Azerbaijan have long blockaded the country, reducing its economic potential. Georgia has its own problems. TRIPP alleviates that isolation, as Turkey would reopen its borders. Armenia would be more secure economically and politically as a result: there would be no need to worry about fighting a two-front war. This fact is even more pronounced considering the benefits of the American presence.
Since the United States is ‘leasing’ the Zangezur corridor, it would have to provide a security umbrella to defend this geopolitical interest. Similar to Trump’s mineral deal in Ukraine, if the United States is able to gain an interest in Armenia, it will have to defend that interest. Developing Armenia in this regard offers Armenia significant investments in infrastructure, such as roads and high-speed internet. This will most definitely invite further investment, leading to spillover into other areas and leading to increased standards of living. The economic opportunities here will improve the lives of Armenians as increased ties will lead to further rounds of trust, investment, and partnership. Increased confidence will lead to further investment due to rising confidence. Armenia will enjoy the benefits of a strong relationship with the world’s most powerful and prosperous country.
Further, TRIPP offers Armenia the opportunity to pull-away from bad allies such as Russia and Iran. Before TRIPP, Iran was one of Armenia’s few allies in the region, especially after Russia’s abandonment. Iran is a sponsor of terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. With their debasement, Iran may use Armenia as a proxy, something which the small, landlocked and geopolitically vulnerable state may even embrace. Since Iran is threatened by a western-backed Azerbaijan, Iran may bait Armenia into another war with Azerbaijan, thereby making life miserable for Armenians. Now, Armenia can enjoy the backing of the United States. Russia, as well, remains an incredibly powerful state, but it cannot be relied upon for security.
Of course, it is not all sunshine and rainbows. The Armenian state would have to change its constitution to remove formerly controlled Armenian territory. However, this does not mean that the Armenian people should forget, not at all. The country of North Macedonia had to change its name, its flag, and some of its national symbols to join NATO. Macedonians resist by using the former name, embracing their cultural identity despite the anger of Greeks and Bulgarians. Similarly, the Armenian people can remember their history. The Armenian brandy Ararat comes to mind. There is no need to reject TRIPP if Armenians realize that remembering their history is in their hands.
In summation, Armenia would receive enhanced security, as the USA is the guarantor of the corridor. This would lead to more global investment as investors will be confident in Armenia as a safe and profitable country. TRIPP would invest in infrastructure, which would spill over into other segments of the economy, further improving the lives of Armenians. It would no longer be isolated, as it would be on relatively good terms with neighbors. There would be no concerns over going to war. This would only further the likelihood that Armenia will prosper, facilitating the happiness of a people who never had a chance to recover from the Armenian genocide. Such normalcy is something to be embraced.
Further Reading on E-International Relations
- Opinion – Why Armenia and Azerbaijan Diverge on the Zangezur Corridor
- Opinion – For Lasting Peace Armenia Needs to Remove Territorial Claims From Its Constitution
- Triumph in Defeat: Inaugurating a New Era for Azerbaijan and Armenia
- Opinion – The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: Russia’s Exit Cue from South Caucasus?
- Omens for the South Caucasus in the 2024 US Presidential Election
- Opinion – The Choice in Nagorno-Karabakh: Ethnic Cleansing or Self-Determination?
