ReadNOW

When Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a US-brokered deal in Washington this August – with Donald Trump taking credit as peacemaker-in-chief – it was quickly branded the “Trump Route” to stability in the South Caucasus.

On paper, it promises “peace and prosperity.” In practice, it’s a lot more complicated. The new transport corridor cutting through Armenia’s Syunik Province isn’t just an infrastructure project – it’s a geopolitical choke point tying together the ambitions of Baku, Ankara, Washington, and Brussels.

For Yerevan, it could turn out to be less the dawn of a new chapter and more the next round in a long fight to hold onto its land – only this time, under a very different set of rules.

Terms of the deal

On August 8 in Washington DC, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev signed a joint declaration pledging to reopen transport and communication links between their countries. The deal – mediated and personally unveiled by Donald Trump – also commits both sides to ending long-standing hostilities and working toward normalising diplomatic relations.

Alongside the political agreement, Armenia and Azerbaijan signed separate accords with the United States on trade, economic cooperation, innovation, and energy partnerships.

The deal’s headline feature is a transport corridor running through Armenia’s Syunik Province, connecting mainland Azerbaijan with the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. Yerevan has even proposed an official name for it: the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity. Under the terms, the corridor will be operated by a private American company on a 99-year lease, with an option to extend.

“This isn’t just a peace treaty; it marks the establishment of international relations and the opening of embassies between the neighboring countries,” Azerbaijani National Assembly (Milli Majlis) member Aydin Mirzazade has said. “A process of normalization between Azerbaijan and Armenia will follow. This agreement will put an end to the strained relations that have existed between Azerbaijan and Armenia since 1988, when the Armenian political elite laid a claim to historical Azerbaijani lands, culminating in the occupation of 20% of Azerbaijani territory. I believe there is a strong desire in both nations to establish normal, neighborly relations.”

After the signing in Washington Pashinyan also floated the idea of a mutual territorial swap, which raised eyebrows back home. “There are territories that, logically, belong to Armenia but are under Azerbaijan’s control, and there are territories that, logically, belong to Azerbaijan but are under Armenia’s control,” he said . He argued that both sides should continue demarcating the border and return any land that does not “rightfully” belong to them.

Who gets what

On the surface, both Armenia and Azerbaijan walk away with something to celebrate. Supporters of the deal argue it’s a win-win that could boost trade, create jobs, and calm one of the region’s most volatile flashpoints. Mirzazade calls it “a highly profitable economic project” that could generate hundreds of thousands of jobs, open new markets, and reassure neighboring states that war isn’t around the corner.

“Tense relations and the volatile situation in the South Caucasus have severely hampered trade freedom, investments, and so on. This tension has affected the ability of other nations to pursue their legitimate interests in the region. The opening of the Zangezur Corridor will allow for the free movement of goods and people from Asia to Europe and back,” he said to ReadNOW.

For Azerbaijan, the payoff is obvious: a direct land link to its Nakhchivan exclave – something Baku has long sought. The corridor gives it unhindered access across southern Armenia and a clear logistical advantage in trade and transport.

Türkiye, Azerbaijan’s closest ally, also stands to gain. As Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan openly put it, the corridor would knit the Turkic world together, linking Central Asia to Europe through Turkish territory. In Ankara’s view, it’s not just a bilateral arrangement; it’s a strategic bridge for pan-Turkic integration.

Europe, too, gets something out of it – access to Central Asian energy resources routed through NATO territory. For Brussels, it’s a safer alternative to Russian-controlled or Iranian-linked routes. 

“Of course, Europe would prefer the presence of, say, the French rather than the Americans. That would feel more secure for them, considering the current tensions with Washington. But still, for Europe, this is far better than having no such corridor at all,” Armenian political analyst Karen Igitian told ReadNOW.

For the United States, the corridor serves multiple strategic goals. First, it opens a secure route for moving Central Asian energy westward without passing through Russia or Iran. 

“The second crucial aspect is the potential to supply arms to Central Asia in the event of escalating tensions or conflicts, which, as Washington believes, could involve Russia. In such cases, Americans would have the ability to deliver weapons and ammunition without any obstacles. Unblocking communication routes without establishing this corridor would raise doubts in the US about the reliability of such supplies,” Karen Igitian explained.

And perhaps most importantly, it puts Washington in a position to exert lasting influence in a region where Russia has traditionally called the shots.

That influence is exactly what worries Iran and Russia. Tehran has warned that the corridor could destabilize the regional balance, redraw borders, and undermine Armenia’s sovereignty. An advisor to Iran’s supreme leader went so far as to threaten that it would become “the graveyard of Trump’s mercenaries.”

Moscow, while less blunt in its public statements, has every reason to see the US-brokered deal as an encroachment on its traditional sphere of influence – especially given that it was Russia, not Washington, that mediated the 2020 ceasefire.

Armenia’s position is the most complicated. It gains the promise – and only the promise – of peace, along with potential economic openings from restored transport links. 

Risks and the road to escalation 

Azerbaijan’s expectations are set high by its own leadership. In December 2020, President Ilham Aliyev described Zangezur, Gegharkunik, and Yerevan as “historical Azerbaijani lands,” and, at a party congress two years earlier, framed Yerevan as a city Baku ultimately aims to “take back.” In his telling, “Armenia’s aggressive policies” since the late 1980s have displaced hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis. Those statements continue to echo over the current talks.

Baku also wants Yerevan to change its basic law: Azerbaijan insists that Armenia revise its constitution to remove any claims to Azerbaijani territory. That demand, raised alongside the Washington signing, turns domestic Armenian politics into a live wire for the process.

Armenian analyst Karen Igityan cautions that a paper peace may not hold. “This agreement could move the sides closer to a formal peace,” he says, “but it doesn’t guarantee actual peace.” In his view, “Azerbaijan considers the entire territory of Armenia to be Western Azerbaijan,” and Aliyev “explicitly” names Yerevan and Etchmiadzin as Azerbaijani. Azerbaijan’s military spending has again hit a record $5 billion, which he reads as a signal that “Azerbaijan has no intention of establishing peaceful relations with Armenia… we see Azerbaijan preparing for another escalation.”

On guarantees, Igityan is blunt: beyond Donald Trump’s line – “If you don’t get along, call me and I’ll straighten it out” – “there are no clearly defined international guarantees.” That vagueness, he argues, mirrors the post-November 10, 2020 pattern, when “the mechanisms for oversight weren’t sufficiently outlined,” allowing Baku to “launch military actions several times.”

Even the corridor itself can become a flashpoint. With a private American company overseeing operations on a 99-year term, Armenia, Igityan says, “loses control over part of its territory,” because “it’s no longer up to Armenia to decide what happens in that area; the signatures of the United States and Azerbaijan are already on the document.”

All of this keeps the margin for error thin. As Igityan puts it, “This propaganda doesn’t stop,” and with constitutional edits, border demarcation, and corridor rules all in play, any stumble risks becoming the next crisis.

Geopolitical context 

The Zangezur corridor may be framed as a peace project, but its real weight is geopolitical. For Ankara, it’s a strategic hinge between the Turkic states of Central Asia and Europe – a physical link that advances a decades-old vision of cultural and political integration.

For Washington, it’s a rare chance to plant a long-term presence in a region historically under Russian sway, with the added benefit of securing energy routes and potential military supply lines that bypass Moscow and Tehran entirely.

These ambitions are precisely what make Moscow and Tehran uneasy. For Russia, the deal shifts the optics – and potentially the reality – of mediation in the South Caucasus. Azerbaijani lawmaker Mirzazade recalled that various mediators have played roles at different stages in the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict.

“On November 10, 2020, a ceasefire agreement was reached with Russian mediation, and Russia was also involved in the subsequent negotiations aimed at concluding a peace treaty,” he said.

“For Azerbaijan, it doesn’t really matter who controls this road. What matters is that the 43-kilometer route from one part of Azerbaijan to another remains open so our citizens can move around freely. We referred to the example of Kaliningrad, where Russian citizens and vehicles pass through another country without customs checks. Azerbaijan demands the same arrangement, and this demand has been accepted.”

For Iran, the corridor’s alignment with NATO-linked infrastructure threatens to cut it off from the north and reinforce a chain of allied states stretching from Türkiye into Central Asia.

In practice, the corridor is less about trucks and trains than about influence. Whoever controls its operation and security gains leverage over a swath of Eurasia’s trade and transit – leverage that can be used to build alliances, pressure rivals, or recalibrate the balance of power in the region. This makes the Zangezur deal not just a test of Armenian–Azerbaijani reconciliation, but a live battleground for the strategic agendas of four competing capitals.

What’s next? 

The “Trump Route” deal has been sold as a breakthrough – a handshake in Washington, a promise of open borders, and a road meant to carry prosperity from Asia to Europe. But in the South Caucasus, promises are fragile currency. The same corridor that is billed as a bridge could just as easily become a fault line, shaped less by the goodwill of its neighbors than by the strategic ambitions of powers far beyond Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The agreement’s survival will hinge on factors the signing ceremony couldn’t fix: whether Baku reins in its maximalist rhetoric, whether Yerevan can navigate domestic backlash without derailing commitments, and whether outside actors treat the corridor as shared infrastructure rather than a geopolitical choke point. None of those conditions are guaranteed – and history suggests that when they fail, it’s rarely on just one front.

For now, the road through Syunik exists mostly on paper. Whether it becomes a path to peace or another route to confrontation will depend on the ability of its architects to enforce not only the letter of the deal, but the trust it was meant to create. In the South Caucasus, that may be the hardest route of all.