The United States recently brokered a peace agreement aiming to end decades of conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. The most recent hostility resulted in thousands being displaced, infrastructure destroyed, and foreign powers being involved in mediations between the two countries. In response, this peace framework intended to grant Azerbaijan full access to the territory whilst respecting the rights of the remaining Armenian populations to then bring stability and increase potential trade opportunities.

Why This Agreement Matters 

This decision was made after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s since Nagorno-Karabakh is located within the Azerbaijan borders but has historically been home to a majority of ethnic Armenians who sought independence. When the people looked to withdraw from Azerbaijan and unite with Armenia, this ultimately turned into decades of conflicts, as the territory carries deep historical, ethnic, and cultural significance for both nations' identities. For Armenians, Nagorno-Karabakh serves as an emblem of endurance and victory, representing Armenia’s national identity and ambition. On the other hand, for Azerbaijanis, the region is home to many Azerbaijani poets and musicians so losing sovereignty over the area would be perceived as the erasure of a significant part of their cultural heritage. 

The dispute between the two nations escalated majorly in the late 1980s, the 1990s, and again in 2020 before the peace framework. In September 2023, Azerbaijani launched an offensive on Nagorno-Karabakh, forcing the displacement of over 100.000 Armenians. Within 24 hours the two sides then agreed to a Russia-brokered ceasefire under which the ethnic Armenians were forced to capitulate to Baku while Russian peacekeepers were deployed to the region. Despite the agreement, it was not a sustainable settlement, as it was finalized after Azerbaijan had already taken full military control of the area, making it more of a surrender than a balanced peace. Meanwhile, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikil Pashinyan, who had been signaling frustration with Russia’s security guarantees’ failures, began pivoting towards the United States. This shift then led to negotiations finalised on August 8. According to the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, the final agreement reflected a priority of the Trump administration, following in the pattern of previous US brokered peace efforts between India and Pakistan as well as between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

Trump’s Mediation 

Under the peace agreement, the US will gain development rights for 99 years over the Zangezure Corridor through the South Caucasus. This paves the way for the 43-kilometer economic project named the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). A project that is strategically placed to connect Azerbaijan to the western exclave of Nakhchivan through Armenia’s southern Syunik Province. TRIPP is presented as a commercial initiative designed to enhance economic prosperity and guarantee lasting peace by linking Europe and Central Asia as a channel for energy exports and other trades. The potential development of this corridor could effectively revitalize the old Silk Road, creating a new route from the Caspian Sea to Europe without directly passing through Russia or Iran. This represents a significant number of geopolitical shifts especially for the US and its allies, by providing an alternative to counter China’s Belt and Road initiative.

Where earlier peace efforts focused primarily on temporary ceasefires, the Trump administration stepped in to assume the mediation role previously held by the OSCE Minsk Group and Russia, whose efforts only managed to freeze tensions despite decades of proposals and minimal enforcement guarantees, particularly as Russia was preoccupied with the conflict in Ukraine. By offering the possibility of a durable settlement, the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace framework follows a familiar blueprint from one of Trump’s foreign policy approaches, namely the Abraham Accords, a treaty between Israel and several Middle Eastern countries designed to defuse regional tensions. In both cases, the Trump administration bypassed slow moving multilateral bodies and finalized agreements through a “peace through profit” strategy to project diplomatic success with a much more sustainable implementation. In other words, a transactional diplomacy that directly tied economic incentives to agreements between heads of states. 

Stakeholders Reactions

US’s brokered deals have sent ripples to regional foreign powers across the South Caucasus, prompting a mix of caution and strategic calculations among the nations. Russia, long regarded as Armenia’s primary security guarantor; now finds its weakening leverage in its decades-long role between the two conflicted nations. Distracted by its war in Ukraine and despite offering a cautious welcome to the agreement, the peace framework within the Trump administration had sidelined Russia’s current control over the strategic corridors. Turkey, on the other hand, has called it a “very beneficial development,” welcoming both the peace agreement and the planned trade corridor. The country sees the project as a way to boost energy exports and other resources through the South Caucasus, a shift that would significantly strengthen Turkey’s influence in the region at a time when Russia’s influence is receding. 

Iran initially welcomed the deal as a step towards lasting regional peace in the South Caucasus. The Iranian Foreign Ministry highlighted the benefits of economic development, stability, and security if the project succeeds, while stressing the need to minimize foreign interventions in order to respect national sovereignty and integrity. Yet, despite originally stating that Iran remains willing to foster constructive cooperation based on mutual interests, a stark statement soon followed from Ali Akbar Velayati to Iran’s supreme leader motioning that Iran would fight to prevent Trump’s corridor from developing. This shift shows Iran’s calculation of the potential strategic costs with US influence in the region through a 99 year lease, Iran’s role in east-west trade routes could be completely cut out. 

The Trump brokered framework is at best a fragile bridge over one of the most long-standing conflicts in the South Caucasus. If it holds, it may be able to reshape the geopolitical landscape of the Southern Caucasus, easing tensions while simultaneously enabling the maximum potential of global commerce through the construction of the upcoming trade corridor. Yet if the agreement fails, the possible consequences of renewed hostilities and collapse of trust could be severe. In the end, this can either be a turning point toward lasting peace or a high stakes gamble that could set the South Caucasus on an unwanted path.