The Islamic Republic of Iran, once the last defender of its northern Christian neighbour Armenia, increasingly finds itself at the centre of a carefully orchestrated web of transport corridors that threaten to transform the country into what officials describe as a “suffocated geography” – economically isolated and strategically marginalised.
The latest development in this encirclement unfolds on August 8, when President Donald Trump hosts Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan at the White House for what Reuters describes as a landmark summit. The meeting aims to launch the newly rebranded Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) – a US-led infrastructure project that would grant America exclusive long-term development rights over a commercial transit route through southern Armenia. It was previously called the Zangezur Corridor, but the Trump White House has rebranded it.
The agreement represents the most significant US diplomatic intervention in the South Caucasus since former President George Bush danced in Georgia 20-odd years ago. Four key agreements are expected: a joint peace declaration, the initialling of a bilateral peace treaty, withdrawal from the OSCE Minsk Group, and memoranda of understanding between Washington and both nations.
For Iran, TRIPP poses an existential challenge after the country continues to suffer the long-term effects of the Israeli-imposed 12-day war on the non-aligned state. The route would connect Azerbaijan’s mainland to its Nakhchivan exclave, effectively severing Tehran’s only land link to Armenia and European markets. US officials acknowledge the project would “nullify Iranian plans for a long-term presence in the southern Caucasus” – a development that crosses what Tehran considers a red line.
Yet TRIPP represents merely one strand in a broader tapestry of isolation. To Iran’s east, the Lapis Lazuli corridor seeks to connect Pakistan and Afghanistan to Turkmenistan, deliberately bypassing the shorter, more cost-effective route through Iranian territory. In the south, the proposed IMEC corridor would link India to the Mediterranean via the Persian Gulf’s southern shores, rendering Iran’s strategic position irrelevant. Meanwhile, the Development Road in the west aims to channel Gulf trade through Iraq to Turkey, paralleling but excluding Iran’s established north-south transit route with Russia.
The American strategy cleverly avoids provocative terminology, eschewing “corridor” language associated with Russian extraterritorial demands whilst framing TRIPP as part of the broader “Middle Corridor” strategy connecting Central Asia to Europe. Armenian officials stress the route will be non-militarised, with security handled by private commercial operators – assurances that ring hollow given the project’s explicit aim of curtailing Iranian influence.
This systematic encirclement reveals a troubling pattern. Each corridor requires longer routes, higher costs, and complex multimodal transport arrangements – sacrifices apparently deemed worthwhile to achieve one primary objective: Iran’s exclusion from international trade networks. As one US official candidly explained, the idea is to “unlock the region through commercial means” whilst creating economic interests that inherently marginalise Iranian participation.
Iranian analysts describe Zangezur as part of a 34-year American strategy that has found new urgency under current geopolitical circumstances. The corridor’s proposed six-kilometre width far exceeds requirements for conventional transport infrastructure, suggesting military and strategic applications that extend beyond commerce.
The timing proves particularly ominous. Recent regional conflicts have demonstrated how these planned trade and energy corridors could serve dual purposes, with airspace above proposed routes potentially facilitating military operations against Iranian territory. The confluence of economic isolation and security vulnerabilities creates a dangerous precedent.
Iran’s concerns extend beyond immediate economic impacts. Should these corridors materialise as envisioned, the country risks becoming economically invisible – present on maps but absent from vital international trade arteries. Such isolation would render Iran increasingly vulnerable to sanctions and external pressure whilst diminishing its role as a regional power.
The broader implications suggest a fundamental reshaping of regional connectivity that deliberately marginalises one of the Middle East’s most significant economies. For Iran, what others frame as development initiatives increasingly resembles a coordinated strategy of containment disguised as progress.
At an August 6 event in Tehran hosted by state-owned Mehr News Agency with several government officials and regional experts.
In that Dariush Safarnezhad said that the Zangezur Corridor project stems from a 34-year-old US initiative originally known as the “Goble Plan”, and that the latest version is being pushed with support from NATO, Israel, Turkey and extremist factions. He claimed Turkey’s strong involvement is linked to its hosting of NATO’s southeastern command and its influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Balkans and Afghanistan.
Safarnezhad said two recent high-level meetings — one in Turkey and another in the UAE — laid out an 8-9 month timeline for implementing the project. He added that Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has agreed to grant de facto authority over a 40 km-long, 5-6 km-wide strip for 100 years. “If this were just a transit road, 70 metres would suffice,” he said. “The width shows it’s not just about logistics, but a strategic zone.”
He further alleged that Israeli F-35 and F-16 aircraft used the corridor’s airspace during a 12-day air campaign targeting Tehran, Karaj and northern Iran, as part of what he called “a prelude to deeper strategic encirclement.”
According to Safarnezhad, the consortium managing the corridor — made up of US, European, Israeli, Turkish, Azerbaijani and Armenian firms — will be formally established from August 9 for two months. He claimed Azerbaijan and Armenia will then inform the UN Security Council of their intention to dissolve the Minsk Group’s mandate, and that Armenia’s constitution will be amended to remove references to Nagorno-Karabakh. He also asserted that Armenia’s political system will be restructured from a parliamentary to a presidential model.
Safarnezhad said a comprehensive peace deal is scheduled to be signed on April 24, 2026, in Istanbul, with the presence of Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Pashinyan and Ilham Aliyev. A constitutional referendum and elections will reportedly follow in Armenia, paving the way for both Armenia and Azerbaijan to join NATO.
He added that the term “Zangezur” is deliberately avoided in official rhetoric. “Pashinyan advised Aliyev to use the phrase ‘transport links from Armenia to Europe’ to avoid provoking Iran, where the term Zangezur is highly sensitive,” he said.
Shoaib Bahman, President of the Institute for Contemporary World Studies said the Zangezur Corridor is part of a broader series of projects intended to isolate Iran from regional transit routes. He listed the Lapis Lazuli corridor in the east, the IMEC corridor in the south, and the Development Road in the west, all of which aim to divert traffic away from Iran through alternative maritime, rail and land corridors.
Bahman warned that if implemented, these routes would render Iran geographically sidelined. “Even if it remains on the map, Iran will no longer be connected to any major international commercial artery,” he said. He added that excluding Iran from global trade networks increases its vulnerability to sanctions and external pressure.
“Zangezur is part of a much bigger picture,” he said, pointing to the David Corridor, which he claimed links southern Syria, Iraqi Kurdistan, and northeastern Syria with the Iranian border. “This corridor was used during the Israeli air campaign to strike Iranian targets.”
Ehsan Mohahedian, another speaker at the event, said the strategic value of the Caucasus has increased to the point that Washington is now focusing more on Azerbaijan than on its Arab allies. He accused Baku of using economic justifications as a cover for a geopolitical campaign against Iran.
“If this was simply about transit, there are easier, well-established routes through Georgia,” he said. “The real motivation is to weaken Iran’s territorial integrity and strategic position. What I see from Baku is not regional cooperation, but collaboration with Israel.”