Nournews: The release of the peace statement between Baku and Yerevan should not be seen merely as a de-escalation between the two sides, but rather as part of a broader process aimed at redefining the security architecture of the South Caucasus. In effect, this agreement signals a shift in crisis management from traditional mechanisms under Russia’s influence and the Minsk Group to a framework directly controlled by Washington.
This major change has left fundamental issues—such as the final status of Karabakh and unresolved border disputes—untouched in the agreement, and the silence on these points has created an atmosphere of strategic ambiguity. Such ambiguity allows the architects of the deal to keep the conflict as a tool of leverage for the future, while preventing a durable and comprehensive resolution.
The economic layer of U.S. influence in the Caucasus
Beyond security dimensions, Washington’s role and presence in the agreement also serve economic and structural influence goals. Global experience shows that the entry of U.S. transnational corporations into crisis-affected regions and infrastructure projects—though ostensibly aimed at reconstruction and development—often leads to economic dependency, structural corruption, and prolonged instability.
With its strategic location as a key corridor for East–West energy and trade transit, the South Caucasus is well-positioned to attract this kind of economic penetration. U.S. control over infrastructure projects and the rerouting of trade pathways could affect the financial and economic independence of regional states, including Iran, and weaken their position in global trade and transit networks.
Legal ambiguity and the absence of key regional players
From the perspective of international law, the peace statement lacks binding enforcement mechanisms or clear monitoring frameworks. The commitments in the text are broad and vague, and no third-party authority has been designated to guarantee the agreement’s implementation or mediate future disputes.
More importantly, key regional players—such as Iran, as well as multilateral organizations like the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization—have no role in the agreement. This reveals a deliberately narrow and controlled design favoring extra-regional actors, particularly the United States, and increases the likelihood of renewed crises and heightened tensions. In this sense, the agreement represents not an end, but the opening of a new chapter in the power competition across the South Caucasus.
Iran’s geopolitical capacity and international reactions
In this context, Iran’s geopolitical position and the historic significance of the Aras Corridor are particularly important. Serving as a bridge between East and West, this route remains a key link in the region’s transit network, providing Iran with substantial potential to strengthen its role in regional dynamics.
While some narratives speak of Iran’s supposed “geopolitical suffocation” in this environment, such claims are largely part of an information war aimed at undermining confidence in Iran’s geo-economic and geopolitical capabilities. On the ground, existing infrastructure and realities still allow Iran to play an effective role in regional affairs.
The global response to the peace statement reflects sharp differences in perspectives. Russia and China view it as an attempt to curtail their influence and alter the regional balance of power. Europe, in a dual stance, welcomes the de-escalation but remains skeptical about its sustainability. Even within the United States, some media outlets have questioned the feasibility and longevity of the agreement.
These reactions suggest that the deal is less about ending the crisis and more about paving the way for complex new rivalries in the South Caucasus.
The U.S.-led Baku–Yerevan peace statement and the renaming of the Zangezur Corridor to the Trump Road are not merely signs of easing tensions; they signify a transformation in crisis management in the South Caucasus. By sidelining Russia’s traditional role, the agreement deepens legal and security ambiguities while creating new opportunities for U.S. economic penetration.
Under these circumstances, an active and strategic role by Iran and other regional actors will be critical in safeguarding their stability and interests.
NOURNEWS