Why Iran should ...
Page 1
Armenia has categorically rejected any cession, while Azerbaijan insists that control of the route is essential for seamless transit between its mainland and Nakhchivan. Armenia regards this demand as a violation of its national sovereignty and strongly opposes it.
Armenia has floated a third option: leasing a transit corridor to an Armenian‑American company. This remains at the discussion stage with no agreement signed. Claims of direct US or NATO involvement in the region are exaggerated and denied by Armenia itself. The reality is that Armenia will never relinquish sovereignty over its land, particularly to a neighbor like Azerbaijan.
Armenia would only entertain the Armenian‑American-controlled transit route under condition that Turkey opens access to the Black Sea through its own territory. Therefore, it is incorrect to suggest Armenia is turning over a 44‑kilometer strip or that Azerbaijan is prepared to cut off Iran’s routes. Nonetheless, Armenian authorities are under pressure, and Iran must maintain continuous engagement and support to prevent adverse geopolitical changes.
Moreover, Azerbaijani claims to control all of Syunik could lead to future southern territorial grabs. Iran cannot remain indifferent. It must interact continuously with both Armenia and Azerbaijan, alerting both sides to the risks—not in an alarmist fashion, but with strategic prudence. Tehran should not buy into rhetoric implying NATO has based forces on its borders—a belief once held about Afghanistan, which two decades of NATO presence failed to confirm in tangible results. Awareness matters more than exaggeration.
There are already practical connections underway: Iran is building bridges linking its territory to Nakhchivan, partly on Iranian soil and partly in Azerbaijani hands, with the latter advancing more swiftly.
Given the new dynamics in the South Caucasus, Iran should foster economic ties with Azerbaijan, Armenia and even Turkey. The goal is to establish a multilateral framework for regional economic and developmental cooperation. Still, vigilance is essential to avoid becoming geopolitically boxed in—without tipping into hyperbole.
Change in the region is driven by governments, not Iran alone. Tehran cannot dictate Armenian decisions about its territory, but it can issue reasoned recommendations based on friendship and shared interests—such as ensuring any transit route is arranged in a way that does not jeopardize Iran’s connectivity. As long as regional actors choose routes that do not effectively seal Iran off, confrontation is unnecessary. Indeed, broader economic collaboration with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey could help resolve many long‑standing challenges. Iran’s diplomatic outreach to Armenia should continue to secure vital transit paths and prevent blockages.