webangah News Agency, International Desk: Following Nikol Pashinyan and Ilham Aliyev unveiling the “Trump Road” corridor plan at the White House, speculation has intensified regarding its impact-or lack thereof-on iran’s shared border with Armenia and its historic influence in the South Caucasus region. Supporters and critics of NATO and Turkic state activities along Iran’s northwest borders have reentered media discourse. The former group argues that Yerevan and Baku have accounted for Tehran’s strategic concerns on territorial integrity and land connectivity to the region, noting that American presence is not near Iran’s border but rather inside Armenian territory under Yerevan’s control for 99 years.
The opposing viewpoint holds that America’s economic presence close to Iran-Armenia border corridors inevitably influences regional geopolitics. In the short term, it could negatively effect overland routes from the Persian gulf to markets in the South Caucasus and Russia.
What did Aliyev and Pashinyan agree upon in Washington?
Among experts who endorse the “harmless” nature of “Trump Road,” a key argument is that none of the 17 clauses in Baku-Yerevan’s agreement explicitly mention a Zangazur corridor or pose direct threats to Iranian border lines. though, some provisions encode potential risks to iranian interests.
As an example, Clause 10 states: ”To facilitate cooperation across various fields-including economic affairs, transport, environment, humanitarian issues, and culture-the parties may enter agreements on mutually agreed areas.” Although this text does not explicitly mention launching a corridor or American involvement, subtext reveals Donald Trump personally branding himself as mediator by naming a 43-kilometer Zangazur corridor after himself during negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Clause 7 adds: “neither party shall deploy third-party forces along their shared borders. Until boundary demarcation advances are complete, both sides will implement mutually agreed security measures-including military confidence-building actions-to ensure stability at their frontiers.”
This clause emphasizes tensions arising alongside Armenia-U.S. joint military exercises like ‘Eagle Partner 2025.’ It contradicts Collective Security Treaty Institution commitments while threatening security along Iranian-Russian borders by effectively placing NATO neighbors adjacent to these powers. The opening section may also complicate Russian peacekeeper deployments.Gradually, this security-military dynamic shifts advantage toward U.S.-Turkey influence while diminishing Iran’s-and Russia’s-regional sway alongside China.
Yet from a technical viewpoint analyzing clauses one through three highlights positive impacts: recognizing mutual territorial integrity claims without raising new disputes reduces immediate risks of renewed armed conflict in South Caucasus-a direct safeguard for northwest Iranian border security. This fosters stability along east-west and north-south transit routes through Armenia while easing pressure on Iranian border forces.
An additional benefit is legal grounds preventing either side from using its territory against the other-a deterrent against hostile third-party actors undermining regional security near Iran. Conversely,* if Soviet-era borders serve as baseline conditions merged with Zangazur Corridor projects*, Tehran risks losing geopolitical leverage over transit equations by effectively narrowing Armenia’s strategic depth relative to its southern neighbor. A prohibition on resorting to force could further constrain Tehran’s ability to respond strategically against combined threats emerging from Baku-Ankara alliances.
The ban on foreign troops deploying along Armenian-azerbaijani boundaries should prevent NATO expansion or permanent Turkish military placements near northwest Iran if genuinely enforced-thus enhancing Tehran’s strategic buffer within Caucauses.
Clauses four through six forbid domestic interference while defining dispute resolution via joint commissions-offering Tehran diplomatic channels for mediating or advising regional processes.
Utilizing such avenues prudently can help balance power dynamics preventing heightened Turkish-Israeli interference.
formal diplomatic ties between Baku-Yerevan appear calming but open doors for outside players infiltrating Armenian political-economic frameworks. Border demarcations carry significant security consequences affecting transfer routes’ safety/stability. Iran excluded from these phases loses critical influence over regional design necessitating indirect engagements via informal networks.
The prohibitions against stationing foreign forces illustrated implicitly throughout Clauses seven-nine fortify Iranian depth within this sensitive pan-Caspian area.
Condemning extremism/separatism legally arms Iran with pretexts for targeting Pan-Turkic militant networks around its periphery-but lack of enforcement mechanisms historically allows Western-leaning actors room to circumvent commitments.
Handling missing persons’ cases represents humanitarian progress yet potentially masks Western intelligence penetration utilizing aid structures-requiring vigilance across national security sectors relatedly.
Frameworks covering economic cooperation plus transport/environmental/cultural domains create openings for increased Iranian participation in multilateral ventures which-involving active engagement-could maintain land transit advantages versus Turkey-controlled alternatives. Major risk lies where absent dialog isolates Persia economically favoring trade corridors bypassing it completely.
Emphasizing international law supremacy combined with banning disruptive acts limits internal political maneuverability responding swiftly amid Caucasian changes thus reducing operational agility managing frontier crises.These circumstances demand supplementary contingency planning embedded actively into foreign policy apparatus mitigating decision-making gaps abroad instability
Clauses thirteen through seventeen establish joint commissions aiming theoretically at averting military escalations replacing them with negotiated settlements timeously signed & lodged at United nations boosting enforceability further creating international forums suited toward grievance redressal although Clause fifteen limiting prior claims/international hostilities curtails customary leverage among involved actors.As English-language precedence risks reinforcing Western interpretations framing ensuing legal proceedings concurrent hinders long-term realignment potentially benefiting anti-Iran coalitions.Specifically,u00a0Tehran must employ assertive diplomacy engaging executive committees & global media narratives securing optimal role clarifying/implementing protocols reliably fostering balanced power therein.
What Does America Seek in South Caucasus?
The trump administration strategy known informally as “trump Road” aims chiefly at linking Central Asia plus Caspian Sea markets directly with Europe via routes crossing Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan especially leveraging passageways like Zangazur Corridor.This detours traffic away from Iran weakening Persian geo-economic credentials empowering Turkey-Azerbaijan-West coalition dominance over vital energy & trade arteries
This blueprint seeks reducing European energy allocations reliant on Russia while constraining China Belt-and-Road ambitions requiring fortified Western footholds thus marginalizing both Moscow & Tehran simultaneously.The project diminishes revenues tied directly into Persian transshipment schemes completing encirclement tactical containment Northwest-Trend heavy geostrategic pinch around capital.These dynamics intensify complex hybrid threats paralleled by wider Western intelligence-security ingress enforcing surveillance infrastructure inside Azerbaijani-Armenian zones proximate gently bordering northern Persia.In purely energy terms excluding neighboring oil/gas distribution exacerbates Washington pressuring levers operating diplomatically/economically eroding Teheran capacity coupled maritime Black Sea-Mediterranean nonlinear impacts countervailing below
Tactically combating such multilevel scheme mandates reviving layered diplomacy practical integration option transit corridors forging transient coalitions like Moscow-Beijing bloc foregoing unilateralist designs favoring US-Turkish hegemony imposing exclusive processing trails/location selection practices south NIS realm
A Pivot Toward Diplomacy!
< p > Amid flux altering existing global order no major geostrategic initiative unfolds devoid significant economic consequence nor vice versa.Tthe past decade witnessed massive US-Turkish-Zionist investments militarily,economically,culturally reinforcing footholds Central Asia/South Caucasus regions prized owing proximity bordering China,Russia,Iran,& Afghanistan.Move traceable within Biden-era summit hosted Central Asian nations ,escalation Jewish Bukharan elites prestige Uzbekistan politico-social strata,strengthening Azerbaijan – Israeli ties culminating extended eighty-nine-year lease ceding US authority overseeing Zangazur artery .Significant warnings arise when various suspicious media figures/quarters blatantly aligned openly playing Baku-Ankara interest misleading regimes’ highest ruling intellect risking errant calculations.Simultaneously occurring government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani emphasized official stance affirmatively asserting existence explicit Iranian “red lines” demanding measured approaches devoid unwarranted threat amplifications propagated unjustifiably background noise
< p > Actuality remains comparable Israeli economic-political embedding precedes Mossad then army coordinated hostility introducing critical elements adversely impacting Islamic Republic interests neglect concerning american proximate presence threatens grave disruptions regular commerce flows jeopardizing both logistics primacy wider geopolitical weight simultaneously.Fluid yet engaged Persian diplomacy ensured protocol observed suspending provocative incidents during Washington rendezvous preserving mutual respect balances
< p >< strong >Final Word
< p > Misreading unfolding regional-global scenarios equivalently perilous malicious flawed policies imposing considerable costs top leadership,label elite commanders,state agencies paid attention : despite thousand-kilometers distance Suez Canal running intersect Indian Ocean-influences any obstruction reverberates severely hitting all littoral economies Northeast Indian Ocean rim .Settled ninety-nine-year US firm holdings bordering Persia transform what might appear normal instead represent serious threat nurturing many destabilizing operations directed anti-iranian /anti-russian agendas across South Caucasus .Correspondingly irans external affairs ministry urged prioritizing national interest dismiss unqualified commentary robust protection upfront defending sovereignty wherever needed strongly emphasized .
دیدگاهتان را بنویسید