A central concern for Iranian officials over the Zangezur Corridor is the growing influence of Israel in the region. [Getty]

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, addressing the UN General Assembly, focused mainly on Israeli and American strikes against Iran and the country’s nuclear program. However, when he discussed global peace, he added a brief line: “Iran supports the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia.”

But does Tehran truly back the US-brokered deal signed at the White House between Azerbaijan and Armenia? And does the agreement, which grants Washington control of a key transit route for 99 years, serve Iran’s interests as a neighbour to both countries?

Zangezur, Syunik, or the “American corridor”

The treaty, announced on 8 August, drew sharp criticism in Tehran, with some commentators warning that it could mark the start of a “corridors war.”

Ali Akbar Velayati, senior advisor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was direct in his response. “Is the South Caucasus an unowned land that Trump can lease?” he asked.

“With or without Russia, Iran will stop the creation of an American corridor in the Caucasus. This corridor threatens regional security and redraws the geopolitical map,” he continued.

What Velayati called the “American corridor” is the route Armenia refers to as the Syunik Corridor and Azerbaijan as the Zangezur Corridor. It stretches about 45 kilometres along the northwestern border between Iran and Armenia, linking Azerbaijan with its exclave, the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic.

The debate over the corridor has been intense since the end of the Karabakh war in 2020. Iran has consistently opposed its creation, even when Russian forces were meant to oversee its security. By contrast, Ankara and Baku have pushed hard for it.

Armenia itself was reluctant to move forward. Opening the route would weaken its control over its southern border and allow its long-time rival, Azerbaijan, to establish a direct connection with Nakhchivan.

Years of dispute came to an end, at least temporarily, with the signing of a peace agreement that guarantees the creation of the corridor. The route has been rebranded as the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity,” or “TRIPP,” and will be overseen by the United States.

Despite the route’s new name, geopolitical analyst Mohsen Jalilvand described the US move as another step in tightening the economic blockade of Iran and extending pressure on Iran-backed groups across the Middle East.

“In the past year, the resistance front has faced new conditions and lost many of its leaders,” Jalilvand said, referring to the pro-Iran groups in Lebanon and Syria. “Meanwhile, the United States and Israel are moving closer to our borders. No doubt, sooner or later, they will complete the economic blockade of Iran.”

For Tehran, the corridor represents defeat on several fronts. Not only would Washington gain direct access to Iran’s borders, but Iran’s regional rival, Turkey, would also secure a land link to the Caspian Sea, Turkmenistan, and China.

Political analyst Mohammad Javan Akhavan emphasised the broader implications.

“With US backing and the role of the Zionist regime of Israel, the balance of power in the South Caucasus has shifted,” he said. “The Zangezur Corridor now make it possible to extend a route from Istanbul to China, giving NATO a pathway of influence across the Caucasus, the Caspian, and Central Asia under the banner of ethnic alliances.”

Israel in the Caucasus

It is not only the US and NATO presence in the Caucasus and on Iran’s northwestern border that has raised alarms in Tehran. A central concern for Iranian officials over the Zangezur Corridor is the growing influence of Israel in the region.

During “the 12-Day War” in June, when Israel struck Iranian military and civilian sites and the US hit three nuclear facilities, Tehran accused Azerbaijan of allowing Israel to use its airspace to launch drone attacks.

Baku denied the charge, but Iranian analysts say years of military cooperation between Azerbaijan and Israel, dating back two decades, worked against Iran during the conflict.

For many in Tehran, Israel has emerged as the primary beneficiary of the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace deal. “The treaty gave Israel a clear advantage,” said Rasoul Salimi, an Iranian international affairs expert.

Shoaib Bahman, who has long studied the South Caucasus, argued that Israel actively pushed Washington to back the corridor project, calling it part of Tel Aviv’s broader strategy to expand its reach through its close ties with Baku.

“Netanyahu’s decision to occupy Gaza, moves to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon, and efforts to advance the David Corridor in Syria are all part of the same strategy,” Bahman said. “The Trump route fits into this framework and is designed to deal further blows to Iran’s geopolitical interests.”

Ahmad Kazemi, a conservative scholar and university professor, went further, warning of what he described as preparations for a “Tel Aviv-Baku land highway.” He referred to the Zangezur Corridor as the “fourth link” in a chain connecting Baku, Ankara, Damascus, and Tel Aviv.

He cautioned that such a route could erode Iran’s influence across the region. “It won’t be long before the Israeli embassy in Damascus and the Syrian embassy in Tel Aviv are opened,” he said. “If yesterday Iranians could travel by land from Tehran to Damascus and Beirut, tomorrow Israelis will travel by land from Tel Aviv to Baku.”

Despite the criticism, President Masoud Pezeshkian’s government, still reeling from Israeli and American strikes, has avoided more confrontation with Washington and Tel Aviv.

Some experts argue that this restraint will only deepen Iran’s problems. Bahman is among them, warning that Iran’s weakened position could embolden the United Arab Emirates to revive claims over three disputed islands in the Gulf.

“Geopolitical challenges around Iran are growing,” Bahman predicted. “The three islands are another flashpoint. With the UAE’s recent diplomatic moves, the situation could quickly shift in Abu Dhabi’s favour.”