Armenia is one of Iran’s neighbors with which it maintains friendly and tension-free relations. The establishment of a corridor passing through Armenian territory and under the control of the Republic of Azerbaijan or foreign forces would sever this vital connection.
The Zangezur Corridor, as one of the region’s sensitive geopolitical projects in the South Caucasus, has garnered significant attention in recent years due to its profound implications for Iran’s national interests. The South Caucasus, with its sensitive geopolitical position at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, has long been the focal point of complex ethnic, political, and economic rivalries.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 intensified existing tensions, particularly between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Mountainous Karabakh, transforming the geopolitical landscape of the region. Amid this, the Zangezur Corridor has emerged as a natural and strategic passage at the junction of the Lesser Caucasus Mountains, the Anatolian Highlands, and the Zagros Mountains. This proposed corridor encompasses Armenia’s southern Syunik Province and connects Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan. Although transport links existed through this region during the Soviet era, conflicts severed these connections.
The Zangezur Corridor, intended to establish a direct land link between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan via Armenian territory, may appear at first glance as an economic and logistical project. However, upon closer examination, particularly from Iran’s perspective, it emerges as a strategic threat capable of shifting the regional balance of power to Iran’s detriment, disrupting Iran’s access to its northern neighbors, and strengthening the influence of Iran’s regional and extra-regional rivals.
This corridor is part of the 2020 ceasefire agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, signed after the Second Karabakh War with Russian mediation. Although, following the end of the Second Karabakh War in 2023, the central government of Azerbaijan revoked Nakhchivan’s autonomous status, integrating it fully under Azerbaijani law. As a result, the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic’s parliament was dissolved, and its people will now vote in Baku to elect representatives to Azerbaijan’s national parliament.
Nevertheless, the 2020 agreement allowed Azerbaijan to propose the idea of a land route through Armenia’s Zangezur region to connect Azerbaijan proper to Nakhchivan. This route is supposed to operate under the supervision of Russian peacekeepers or other international mechanisms. However, Iran views this corridor with concern. Iran sees it not merely as a transportation route but as a geopolitical tool that could lead to Iran’s isolation in the South Caucasus and jeopardize its national interests.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, as a country sharing borders with both Armenia and Azerbaijan, occupies a sensitive geographical and strategic position. Armenia is one of Iran’s few neighbors with which it maintains friendly and tension-free relations. Armenia serves as a gateway for Iran’s access to the Caucasus and, from there, to European markets. The creation of a corridor passing through Armenian territory and under the control of Azerbaijan or foreign forces could sever this vital link.
Accordingly, Iran believes the Zangezur Corridor could disrupt the regional balance of power in favor of its rivals, particularly Azerbaijan and Turkey. This concern is critical because Iran, due to international sanctions and economic constraints, heavily relies on preserving its trade routes and regional relations. Losing its land connection with Armenia could deprive Iran of one of its few secure and stable pathways for trade and diplomacy.
One of the worrying aspects of the Zangezur Corridor for Iran is the strengthening of the Turkey-Azerbaijan axis. This corridor could be part of an ethnic separatist project. Turkey and Azerbaijan have significantly bolstered their relations in recent years, and the Zangezur Corridor could further solidify this alliance by providing a direct link between Turkey, Nakhchivan, and Azerbaijan proper.
For Iran, this means increased Turkish influence in the South Caucasus, which directly conflicts with Iran’s interests. Turkey, as a NATO member and a country with ties to the Zionist regime, is seen by Iran as an unreliable actor in the region. Strengthening Turkish influence in the Caucasus could imply an increased indirect presence of NATO and the Zionist regime near Iran’s borders, which is unacceptable for Iran’s national security.
Moreover, the Zangezur Corridor could function as part of a broader strategy to weaken Iran’s regional influence. As a regional power, Iran has sought in recent years to strengthen its position in the Caucasus by fostering ties with neighboring countries, including Armenia and Georgia. However, the Zangezur Corridor could neutralize these efforts and further isolate Iran in the region. This isolation could be dangerous not only politically and economically but also militarily. For instance, losing the land link with Armenia could diminish Iran’s ability to support Armenia against pressure from Azerbaijan and Turkey, potentially altering military equations in the region to Iran’s disadvantage.
Amid this, claims have emerged regarding U.S. efforts to secure a 100-year lease on Armenian territory along the Zangezur Corridor under the pretext of ensuring its security. Tom Barak, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey, confirmed reports that a powerful American private company could act as a guarantor for the corridor. This proposal suggests that the U.S. is stepping in, saying, “Give us 32 kilometers of road for a 100-year lease, and everyone can use it.” The stated goal is ostensibly to resolve Armenia-Azerbaijan tensions and ensure neutral, fair, and secure access for both countries.
However, U.S. involvement is perceived as a geopolitical maneuver to facilitate a West-aligned connectivity project while diminishing Russian and Iranian influence. Foreign sources explicitly state that Azerbaijani control over Zangezur is directly linked to “NATO’s dream,” “cutting off Iran from Armenia,” and “creating a route for NATO that bypasses Russia and Iran.” This indicates that the U.S. proposal is not a neutral mediation effort but a calculated geopolitical move aimed at establishing a West-aligned transit artery that could significantly reduce Russian and Iranian strategic influence in the South Caucasus.
On the other hand, Armenia has firmly denied these claims, stating that Yerevan will “under no circumstances discuss transferring a corridor to any third party.” The Armenian Prime Minister’s spokesperson emphasized that Armenia only considers reopening regional infrastructure within the framework of its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and jurisdiction. Furthermore, they clarified that under Armenian law, land leases are only permitted for agricultural purposes, rendering the U.S. ambassador’s proposal legally unfeasible for a transportation corridor. This firm stance shows that the U.S. proposal, despite its stated goal of resolving tensions, is seen as a direct challenge to Armenia’s territorial integrity, akin to Azerbaijan’s extraterritorial demands.
The Zangezur Corridor goes beyond a simple transportation route, carrying profound geopolitical and economic consequences for the region and beyond. It acts as a catalyst for a new regional power axis. The persistent emphasis on its role in strengthening “Turkic unity” and establishing a direct land link with Turkey demonstrates that, for Azerbaijan and Turkey, this project is not merely about economic connectivity but about solidifying a strategic alliance and creating a new power axis in the South Caucasus. This realignment allows them to expand their influence more effectively across Eurasia, potentially challenging existing regional hegemonies. The explicit goal of reducing dependence on Iran highlights geopolitical rather than purely economic motivations, signaling a significant shift in regional power dynamics.
This corridor symbolizes the complex rivalries in the South Caucasus, where economic interests intertwine with geopolitical ambitions, security concerns, and territorial disputes. Iran, as a country with a historically pivotal role in the Caucasus, cannot allow this corridor to lead to its political, economic, and military isolation. It must adopt a multilateral approach to mitigate the corridor’s negative impacts and preserve its position as a regional power.