The visit of representatives from one of America’s leading companies to Armenia to assess terrain conditions under the TRIPP project has officially been postponed. The reason is the escalation in the Middle East — the full-scale war involving Iran, which has forced Washington to redirect its attention toward immediate strategic threats.

This was reported by Foreign Policy.

Officials in both Yerevan and Baku are increasingly concerned about the same issue: the narrow circle of trusted foreign policy advisers around President Trump, currently preoccupied with the Iranian crisis, has effectively shifted the White House’s focus away from the South Caucasus.

Even despite the announced ceasefire, Washington is likely to remain heavily focused on Tehran for a considerable period, which automatically reduces attention to projects in Armenia and to the broader dynamics of Azerbaijani-Armenian relations.

Under these circumstances, as Washington grapples with global challenges, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Yerevan to count on rapid political and economic dividends from its transatlantic partnership.

Azerbaijan, by contrast, continues to demonstrate consistency and predictability in its position, strengthening regional stability through bilateral and multilateral frameworks where priority is given to the real interests of the peoples of the South Caucasus rather than to external geopolitical experiments.

In a comment to Vesti.az, Orkhan Yolchuyev, Director of the CASPIA Analytical Center, stated that what is unfolding today is an intensifying geopolitical struggle among major actors over transport corridors that may potentially run through the South Caucasus.

According to him, the political landscape is increasingly shaped by logistics: who controls the flows, through which routes goods move, and who ultimately operates the corridors.

“It is obvious that the largest actor shaping the new geoeconomic and transport reality of the Caucasus is Azerbaijan. At the same time, there are states actively resisting this process, seeking to promote their own interests and expand their influence in the South Caucasus,” he said.

According to Yolchuyev, the recent strike on Nakhchivan territory appeared to be linked to signaling around the territory through which the TRIPP corridor is expected to pass. In his view, this was a message from the Iranian side to those actors currently shaping the region’s emerging architecture of cooperation.

“The struggle for the South Caucasus after the end of the Second Karabakh War has shifted onto Armenian territory. Before 2020, the center of geopolitical tension was located within Azerbaijan because of the unresolved Karabakh conflict. We managed to fully close that chapter and move the center of tension westward, beyond Azerbaijan’s borders,” the analyst explained.

He emphasized that the Zangezur corridor is not merely about communications, cooperation, business, and investment, but also about geopolitical competition. Although the visit of American representatives to Armenia did not ultimately take place, he believes the project will not be delayed for long. At the same time, it is evident that the parties involved are now working through different scenarios to prevent stagnation and shield the initiative from geopolitical turbulence.

According to the analyst, the strongest opposition to TRIPP will come from Iran and Russia, two actors for whom the project is fundamentally undesirable. TRIPP, in his words, represents a story about a new era — a peaceful era with new actors and rising centers of influence. In essence, it alters a regional balance that has existed for 250 years.

He pointed in particular to recent remarks by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk, who invoked historical narratives and referenced the Treaty of Turkmenchay.

“It is paradoxical: a person responsible for the economic bloc turns to historical narratives surrounding the Turkmenchay Treaty, arguing that the project changes the balance established by the 1828 agreement between Russia and Iran. This was also clearly visible during the meeting between Pashinyan and Putin, where transport corridors and railways were discussed. For Moscow, control over Armenia’s roads remains one of its strategic assets, allowing it to preserve influence in the South Caucasus — influence that has significantly declined over the past five to six years.”

Yolchuyev also noted that immediately after the meeting between Vladimir Putin and Nikol Pashinyan, where Armenia’s railways were discussed, Alexei Overchuk gave an interview stating that Moscow was actively working on the unblocking of transport routes across the Caucasus.

This includes, in particular, the restoration of railway communication between Russia and Georgia via Abkhazia. Momentum in this direction was reinforced by the April Russia–Abkhazia Business Forum, attended by senior Russian officials, including Sergey Kiriyenko.

Yolchuyev stressed that the issue of opening a route through Abkhazia and Georgia into Armenia is being discussed with increasing frequency. In his assessment, Russia is gradually shifting emphasis within the North–South corridor, promoting not only the western route through Azerbaijan into Iran, but also an alternative route via Abkhazia and Georgia.

He also recalled Vladimir Putin’s statements regarding possible Kazakh participation. Earlier, there had been discussions about transferring railway management under Kazakhstan’s control, and Pashinyan has already signaled willingness to consider such an arrangement. Another important signal, according to Yolchuyev, was the visit to Baku by Kazakhstan’s foreign minister and transport minister, where logistics initiatives — including TRIPP — were discussed.

The expert also did not rule out possible changes in the future governance model of Armenia’s railways with Russian participation.

According to Yolchuyev, based on statements by Pashinyan, Astana is also showing interest in TRIPP. At the same time, Armenia’s public and political discourse is beginning to evolve. For example, former President Robert Kocharyan recently gave an interview in which he openly supported the Abkhaz railway route, contrasting it with the “Trump route” and actively promoting that alternative.

“Let me remind you that Abkhazia is controlled by Russia. In addition, a major article was recently published by Armenia’s former foreign minister Zohrab Mnatsakanyan, arguing that this is not merely a local infrastructure agreement but a window of opportunity in a much broader strategic sense. Quietly and gradually, voices are emerging in Armenia that understand the scale of what the country stands to gain.”

Another major variable, the analyst noted, will be the outcome of Armenia’s elections. In his view, this is precisely why pressure on the country and its pre-election environment is likely to intensify. Russia, he argues, will probably use its resources more actively in an attempt to reshape Armenia’s political landscape and create a more favorable environment for itself.

“This entire geopolitical environment is forcing business to rethink logistics. Across Eurasia, new routes will have enormous significance. The Zangezur corridor is unique in itself. Its passability also has a historical dimension: during the 1940s, in World War II, lend-lease cargo moved through this space when the United States supplied aid to the Soviet Union as Wehrmacht forces advanced toward the Caucasus.”

At that time, he noted, logistics passed through Iraq, southern territories, Iranian waters, and the Persian Gulf — a historical precedent that helps explain the strategic significance of the Zangezur corridor today.

“This is both an East–West route — linking China and Europe, Central Asia and Europe — and part of the North–South corridor. If viewed not through the lens of geopolitical struggle but through geoeconomics and cooperation, it offers even Russia access to the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, especially if integrated with Iranian infrastructure.”

He added that in the future this could give rise to entirely new route geometries — a South–West axis connecting the Black Sea to the Persian Gulf, or even an East–South corridor.

“This small section effectively opens the entire region. Approaches to spatial management formed 200–250 years ago are becoming obsolete. However, a number of countries are not prepared to accept this, which is why we are witnessing such an acute geopolitical struggle.”

Speaking about the implications for Azerbaijan, the expert stressed that the issue is of fundamental importance both in terms of connectivity with Nakhchivan and broader route diversification.

“Statistics show rising cargo volumes along the Middle Corridor. This creates a dual effect: on the one hand, it strengthens the route’s importance and elevates the role of Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus; on the other hand, infrastructure still does not fully cope, which increases transit times.”

According to him, bottlenecks inevitably lead to congestion when volumes grow. This is why efforts are now underway to expand the corridor, particularly its Georgian segment.

“The recent visit of the President of Azerbaijan demonstrated that the country is actively working to strengthen the Middle Corridor, increase cargo volumes, and expand throughput capacity. In the near future, new steps aimed at improving its efficiency can be expected,” Orkhan Yolchuyev concluded.